BOHNSTEDT_The Infidel Scourge of God

The Infidel Scourge of God: The Turkish Menace as Seen by German Pamphleteers of theReformation EraAuthor(s): John W. BohnstedtSource: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 58, No. 9 (1968),pp. 1-58Published by: American Philosophical SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1006112 .Accessed: 10/08/2011 16:04

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toTransactions of the American Philosophical Society.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=amps

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1006112?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

HELD AT PHILADELPHIA

FOR PROMOTING USEFUL KNOWLEDGE

NEW SERIES-VOLUME 58, PART 9

1968

THE INFIDEL SCOURGE OF GOD: THE TURKISH MENACE AS SEEN BY GERMAN PAMPHLETEERS

OF THE REFORMATION ERA

JOHN W. BOHNSTEDT Professor of History, Fresno State College

THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY

INDEPENDENCE SQUARE

PHILADELPHIA

December, 1968

TO

MY FATHER AND MY MOTHER, WERNER A. BOHNSTEDT AND BERTHA BOHNSTEDT; MY WIFE, FRIEDA BOHNSTEDT;

AND OUR CHILDREN, STEPHEN AND MARY

Copyright 0 1968 by The American Philosophical Society

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-59177

iBee tcircNlfcbe t frti 'bcctrug/t/we er von Conftantinoprt

a0i clt cttulungl5 3g/;t ̂ Xoo -nib fi /a waflfct wn Lanb 'z. cen lkncd)firdc) WDycflenBurig fum

men/vnS furtcr/fur bic fdniglidecn ffas Difcn yn ngemrn/ vnnt Wicn y^

Offcrrcid) c3oge/bie bclcgen vui gcfftrmntrE. mit ans

gebcncftcr emarnr un,g/ter r4t4

fiamcn ty rano

my beC turdfen/wyctr Qbtifflidce Nrfaton r?. iaroluo Suloan

\\ mifdctrlkat ooleyinai'durc v 7 /m?rb : l \.tQ\

' fer ErRbfr3rr;t ronn iftcer 4fir rain crb - I /

FIG. 1. Emperor Charles V, "protector of Christendom," and Sultan Suleiman, "hereditary enemy of the Christian faith." (Johann Haselberg, Des Tilrckischg Kaysers Heerzug [Nuremberg, 1530]. Austrian National Library.)

-j I

_r-

PREFACE

This is a study of the Tiirkenbiichlein-popularly written tracts concerning the Turkish threat to Ger- many and Christendom-that appeared in the form of printed pamphlets during the years 1522-1543. By and large, these tracts expressed the reactions of their authors to the invasions of Hungary and Austria by the armies of Suleiman the Magnificent. The authors feared, more or less intensely, a Turkish advance from the Danubian basin into their own German homeland.

Naturally enough, these pamphlets contain a great deal of anti-Turkish propaganda. The authors regarded the Ottoman Turks not as an ordinary political force but as aggressive representatives of the alien and hostile world of Islam, the traditional antagonist of Christendom. Basing their statements more on anti- Moslem prejudice than on fact, they depicted the Turks as "the worst miscreants on earth"-infidels determined to root out the Christian religion and way of life. They exhorted their fellow Christians to resist Turkish aggression both by force of arms and by the spiritual weapon of prayer.

But the Tiirkenbiichlein do not consist exclusively of propaganda against the Moslem foe. The authors interpret the Turkish peril as a scourge inflicted by God upon a sinful Christendom, and many of them seem to have been more concerned with the sins of the Christians than with the Turkish danger per se. Their pamphlets are essentially hortatory tracts which use the Turkish visitation as a strong argument for Christian repentance and reform. Thus the Tiirkenbiichlein, far from concentrating narrowly on a single theme, are vivid mirrors of the thought and feeling of sixteenth- century Germans. With an astonishing immediacy they convey the fears, but also the hopes, of a society rent by internal struggles and confronted at the same time with a powerful external foe.

Although they vary in content, the Tiirkenbiichlein all have a common theme and in most cases, a basic similarity of mood and structure. Their distinctive character can be appreciated only by reading the actual words of their authors, either in the original German or in translation. In many cases, therefore, I have allowed the authors to speak in their own crisp style by means of more or less extensive quotations. In addition, to give the reader some full samples of this

literature, I have provided my own translations of two of the pamphlets in the appendix.

Among the authors of the Tiirkenbiichlein were such prominent men as Martin Luther, Andreas Osiander, and Justus Jonas, as well as a number of lesser figures, both Protestant and Catholic. As Reformation special- ists know, the three Turkenbiichlein by Luther have been thoroughly examined by modern scholars. By contrast, the tracts by Luther's contemporaries have heretofore been treated only sketchily and in some cases, not at all. The present work concentrates upon these neglected pamphlets, dealing with Luther's tracts in summary fashion only.

As the Tiirkenbiichlein are numerous, they vary considerably in degree of interest. While some are pro- vocative or even original in approach and content, others are more or less completely lacking in these qualities. Instead of discussing all pamphlets in detail, I have emphasized the more rewarding ones.

I began my study of the Tiirkenbiichlein while a grad- uate student at the University of Minnesota. A Ful- bright fellowship from the United States Government enabled me to do the basic research in the Austrian National Library at Vienna. Preliminary conclusions were incorporated in my doctoral dissertation, "The Turkish Menace in German Public Opinion, 1522- 1542" (University of Minnesota, 1959). Grants from the American Philosophical Society and Fresno State College made possible additional research, primarily at Harvard University, and revision of the manuscript.

I am deeply indebted to my mentor, Professor John B. Wolf, who directed my doctoral dissertation and has ever since encouraged me to publish my studies. My thanks are also due, for various kinds of assistance, to Professor Peter J. Klassen of the History Department at Fresno State College; to the Research Committee of Fresno State College; and to many librarians on both sides of the Atlantic, especially to Frau Dr. Rosa Sch6mer at the Austrian National Library and to Dr. Henry M. Madden and his staff at the Library of Fresno State College.

John W. Bohnstedt

Fresno, California 8 April 1968

3

THE INFIDEL SCOURGE OF GOD: THE TURKISH MENACE AS SEEN BY GERMAN PAMPHLETEERS OF THE

REFORMATION ERA

JOHN W. BOHNSTEDT

CONTENTS P

I. The setting ....................................... II. The Tiirkenbiichlein and their authors ..............

III. The Turk as arch-enemy of Christendom ............ 1. The Turk's war practices as evidence of his anti-

Christian character ............................ 2. The Turk as a threat to the Christian religion .... 3. The Turk in Lutheran eschatology ................

IV. The Turkish peril as a scourge of God .............. 1. The sins of the Christians as causes of the Turkish

peril .......................................... 2. The "sins of all estates" ........................ 3. The Turkish visitation and the schism in the

Christian Church .............................. 4. The call to repentance, reform, and prayer ........

V. Ideas on war against the Turk ...................... 1. Theological views: Christian faith and war ...... 2. Ideas on the practical aspects of the conflict ......

Appendix of illustrative material I. A Catholic Tiirkenbiichlein in translation: A Sermon

on the Campaign against the Turk, by Matthias Kretz II. A Lutheran Tiirkenbiichlein in translation: Booklet on

the Turk, by Johannes Brenz ....................... III. A Lutheran model sermon: excerpt from How Preach-

ers Should Exhort the People to Repentance and Earnest Prayer against the Turk, by Veit Dietrich ...

Bibliography ........................................... Index ................................................

AGE

5 10 18

19 20 23 25

25 26

28 31 32 32 35

41

46

51 52 57

I. THE SETTING

The first half of the sixteenth century was an age of turmoil both for Germany and for Europe as a whole. No one could better describe the situation than did one of the intellectual leaders of the age, Erasmus of Rotterdam, when he wrote at the beginning of the year 1526:

.... if he [God] were not God I don't think he could get through so much business. King Christian of Denmark, a devout partisan of the gospel, is in exile. Francis, King of France, is a "guest" of the Spaniards. What he thinks of this I don't know, but surely he's a man worthy of a better fate. Charles is preparing to extend the boundaries of his realm. Ferdinand has his hands full in Germany. Bankruptcy threatens every court. The peasants raise dangerous riots and are not swayed from their purpose, despite so many massacres. The commons are bent on anarchy; the Church is shaken to its very foundations by menacing factions; on every side the seamless coat of Jesus is torn to shreds. The vineyard of the Lord is now laid waste not by a single boar but at one and the same time the authority of priests (together with their tithes), the dignity of theologians, the splendor of monks is im- periled; confession totters; vows reel; pontifical ordinances crumble away; the Eucharist is called in question; Anti-

christ is awaited; the whole earth is pregnant with I know not what calamity. The Turks conquer and threaten all the while; there's nothing they won't ravage if their under- taking succeeds.1

Erasmus and his contemporaries had reason to be concerned over the Turkish menace. Already the armies of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566) had conquered Belgrade and Rhodes, the two major Christian strongholds in the East; and the Sultan was planning to bring Hungary under Turkish control. In the ensuing years the Turks overran Hungary, ravaged Austria, besieged Vienna, and repeatedly engaged in bloody conflict with the armies of the Holy Roman Empire.

To the people of Germany, accustomed though they were to wars and rumors of wars, there was something peculiarly sinister about the proximity of the Turkish armies. Unlike other foreign enemies, the Turk did not belong to the European cultural sphere; he represented that world of Islam which had been for centuries the religious and cultural antagonist of Christendom. To most contemporaries the conflict between the Habs- burgs and the Sultan was not just another power struggle but a war between Christians and Moslems. Catholics and Protestants alike regarded the Turk as a sworn enemy of the Christian religion and way of life.

The antagonism between Christians and Moslems had existed long before the Ottoman Turks entered the pages of history. Again and again, Christendom and Islam had encroached upon one another's territories. In the seventh and eighth centuries the Moslem Arabs conquered the greater part of the Near East as well as Barbary and Spain. The high tide of Moslem expansion was stopped in the East by the recuperation of the Byzantine Empire under Leo the Isaurian; in the West by Charles Martel's victory at Tours (732) and even more by the internal dissensions among the Mos- lems of Spain.2 In the eleventh century Christendom seized the offensive with conquests in Spain and Sicily, and in the period around 1100 "Frankish" crusaders captured Jerusalem and founded states in Syria and the Holy Land. But these could not maintain themselves in the face of rising Moslem powers, so that by the end

1 The Colloquies of Erasmus, trans. C. R. Thompson (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1965), pp. 269-270.

2 P. K. Hitti, History of the Arabs (4th ed.; London, Mac- millan, 1949), pp. 501-502.

5

BOHNSTEDT: THE INFIDEL SCOURGE OF GOD

of the thirteenth century the Syrian littoral reverted to Moslem control.

By the fourteenth century the banner of Islam had fallen into new hands. The Ottoman or Osmanli Turks had established a small emirate in Anatolia which was destined to grow into an empire straddling three con- tinents. Instead of erecting a vast but ephemeral empire within a short time, such as the Arabs, Mongols, and other Asian conquerors had done, the Ottomans advanced patiently and cautiously. Their government never quite lost the character of an army of occupation encamped upon a conquered land, but they developed a political and military machine that eventually made their sultan the most formidable power in the whole Levant.

About the middle of the fourteenth century the first Ottoman troops crossed the Straits into the Balkan peninsula. During the ensuing three or four generations the Turks gradually subjugated Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Bosnia, and Albania-in short, virtually the entire Balkan peninsula. In 1453 Constantinople fell before the onslaughts of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed

(Mohammed) II the Conqueror. Thus the Ottoman sultans became the successors of the Christian emperors of Byzantium.8

Even the formidable Mehmed II was unable to con-

quer the island of Rhodes, then the stronghold of an old crusading order, the Knights of St. John of Jeru- salem. Equally unconquerable was the kingdom of Hungary, which engaged in frequent warfare against Mehmed II and other Ottoman sultans in the valley of the Danube. The famous Hungarian general, John Hunyadi, achieved a series of brilliant victories, cul- minating in his defense of the fortress of Belgrade, the

"gate of Hungary," against Mehmed II in 1456. With the aid of a motley crusading host from Western and Central Europe, led by the Franciscan friar John of

Capistrano, Hunyadi hurled back the Turkish besiegers. His son Mathias Corvinus, King of Hungary from 1458 to 1490, was almost equally successful in combatting Ottoman imperialism.

In the meantime, Ottoman marauders from Bosnia

frequently ravaged and pillaged the neighboring Habs-

burg duchies of Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria. While these border raids inflicted heavy suffering upon the local inhabitants, they were of little concern to the Holy Roman Empire as a whole.4

After the death of Mehmed the Conqueror (1481) there were no major Turkish conquests on European soil for a full generation. His grandson Selim I (1512-

3 The career of Mehmed II is admirably treated in F. Babinger, Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit (Miinchen, Bruckmann, 1953).

4 S. A. Fischer-Galati, Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism, 1521-1555 (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 1, 9; F. Stoller, "Oesterreich in den Tiirken- kriegen" (unpublished typescript; Wien, Museum Oesterreich- ischer Kultur, MS 73, 1948), pp. 4, 5, 11, 12.

1520), himself a great conqueror, was interested in territorial acquisitions in the Moslem East rather than in Europe. After defeating the Persians at Chaldiran (1514) he destroyed the Mamluk sultanate, thus adding Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and western Arabia to the Ottoman realm. Mecca and Medina, the holy cities of Islam, now acknowledged the sway of the Sultan at Constantinople. The Turkish ruler became the leading sovereign in the Moslem world, with both religious and political hegemony.

Selim also found occasion to extend Ottoman influence into Northwest Africa. Kheyr ed-din "Barbar- ossa," the Levantine pirate chief then building a Mos- lem state with Algiers as his headquarters, recognized the overlordship of the Sultan (1519). When Selim died in 1520, the Ottoman Empire was a sprawling colossus embracing the greater part of the Near East, portions of Barbary, and the Balkan peninsula to the borders of Hungary.

It was among the ambitions of Selim's son, Suleiman the Magnificent, to establish some kind of Turkish control in Hungary. Eventually he succeeded in fulfilling this dream, but only at the cost of a series of major wars first against the Hungarian monarchy and later against the Habsburgs and the German Imperial Estates. The conquest of Hungary required a number of arduous campaigns in which Suleiman, true to the military traditions of his dynasty, personally commanded his troops. The first of these was directed against Belgrade, the key fortress on the Danube which Sulei- man's redoubtable great-grandfather, Mehmed II, had failed to capture. Belgrade fell to Suleiman (1521), but the Sultan did not immediately exploit this victory by advancing into Hungary proper. Instead, he temporarily turned his attention to the eastern Mediter- ranean. The Knights of St. John at Rhodes had long committed acts of piracy against Moslem commerce, "plundered vessels bearing pilgrims towards Mecca, slain and enslaved the subjects of the Ottoman sultan," 5 and threatened the communications between the Porte and its new provinces of Syria and Egypt. In 1522 Suleiman besieged Rhodes and evicted the Knights, again succeeding where Mehmed II had failed. Thus the most formidable Christian stronghold in the Levant fell into the hands of the Sultan.

Four years later (1526) Suleiman resumed his offensive on the Danube. In the battle of Mohacs he inflicted upon the Hungarians a defeat so crushing that the political independence of the Magyar kingdom was destroyed. But almost immediately after the battle Suleiman withdrew his army from Hungary, making no attempt to annex that country. He was not yet able or willing to garrison and administer territory so distant from Constantinople. Nonetheless, he now re-

5 V. J. Parry, "The Ottoman Empire, 1520-66," The New Cambridge Modern History 2: The Reformation (Cambridge, England, University Press, 1958), p. 510.

6 [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

THE SETTING

garded Hungary as his own by right of conquest; he awaited an opportunity to establish in Hungary a satellite state of the Porte.

Greatly to his advantage was the internal political chaos in Hungary. King Louis II had lost his life at Mohacs, and with him the dynasty of the Jagellons had become extinct. As a result, Hungary entered a period of conflict between rival claimants to the throne and their respective adherents. One faction of the Magyar nobility elected to the kingship Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, whose claim rested upon treaties between previous rulers of Hungary and his Habsburg ancestors. Another faction, refusing to bow to a king of foreign birth, chose the ambitious Prince of Transylvania, John Zapolya, to wear the crown of St. Stephen. Civil war ensued; Ferdinand emerged the victor; and Zapolya in desperation applied to the Porte for Turkish aid. Suleiman gladly agreed to support the weaker con- tender, whom he hoped to use as a puppet ruler in Hungary. In any case, he naturally preferred Zapolya to the Habsburgs, his own rivals not only in the Dan- ubian basin but also in the Mediterranean, where Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, was chronically at war with the Sultan's corsair vassal, "Barbarossa." In 1528 the Porte concluded an alliance with Zapolya, recognizing him as King of Hungary in return for vassalage and tribute. As Ferdinand would not relinquish his claims, there now began a protracted conflict between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans for control of Hungary.

Ferdinand was not strong enough to fulfill his Hun- garian ambitions without military assistance from the German Imperial Estates. But the German rulers were unwilling to help him, as they had no interest in supporting Habsburg dynastic and territorial ambitions in Hungary. They recognized no obligation to fight against the Turk unless the latter should become a threat to the security of the Holy Roman Empire itself. As a matter of fact, events were soon to prove that Germany could not permanently avoid involvement in the Danubian conflict.

In 1529 Suleiman personally invaded Central Europe at the head of a large army with a pack-train of thousands of camels. On the very field of Mohacs he received homage from his new Christian vassal, John Zapolya; he then advanced to Buda, defeated Ferdi- nand's garrison, and formally installed Zapolya as King of Hungary. With the intention of striking a blow at his rival Ferdinand, the Sultan and his host moved on into Austria. During September and early October they besieged Vienna. It was widely believed at the time that Suleiman intended to add Austria and Ger- many to his empire, but this was not the case. The aim of his Vienna campaign was to "warn the Hapsburgs that interference in Hungary, the western bastion of the Ottoman Empire, would not pass unchallenged." 6

6 Fischer-Galati, p. 38.

The city was defended by a mixed garrison of armed burghers, Austrian troops, Spaniards from the Nether- lands, and men in the employ of the German Imperial Estates. Although the garrison was far smaller than the besieging army, the advantages were for the most part on the side of the defenders. The latter had good artillery, whereas Suleiman had been compelled by rainy weather and bad roads to leave most of his heavy cannon at Belgrade. Food shortages, disease, and the raw cold of the Viennese autumn decimated and de- moralized the Ottoman troops. In addition, a relieving army from Germany was assembling some distance up the Danube at Krems. For all these reasons the Sultan finally abandoned the siege. While he had not won a victory, neither had he suffered a crushing defeat-the Turkish menace to the Holy Roman Empire was by no means ended.

Although they failed to take the Habsburg capital, the Turkish troops, particularly the irregular cavalry (akinji) ravaged the Austrian countryside with fire and sword, subjecting the inhabitants to all kinds of ill- treatment.7 The news of Turkish atrocities soon spread throughout the Germanies, arousing a general dread of the infidel foe.

After 1529 both the Habsburgs and the German Estates expected an early renewal of Turkish aggression on the Danube. In the face of the continuing Turkish threat an unusually close cooperation developed between Ferdinand, Charles V, and the German princes and cities. The Protestant Estates were eager to contribute substantially to the defense of the Empire after the Habsburgs promised temporary toleration of Luther- anism.8 In 1532 a large, well-equipped army assembled at Vienna to meet the anticipated Turkish assault. Actually the Turkish menace was at this time less serious than it appeared. Suleiman invaded Hungary, spent much time in besieging the Habsburg-held fortress of Guns, avoided a decisive encounter with the main enemy army, and finally withdrew through Styria to his own territories. The German levies refused to pursue the retreating foe because the Estates had made no commitment beyond the defense of the imperial frontiers.

Suleiman's expedition of 1532 had been little more than a show of force. Unlike in 1529, no major battles

7The most comprehensive bibliography of primary and secondary materials relative to Suleiman's siege of Vienna is in W. Sturminger, Bibliographie und Ikonographie der beiden Turkenbelagerungen Wiens 1529 und 1683 (Graz: Bohlaus Nachf., 1955). For a detailed narrative of the siege, see F. St6ller, "Soliman vor Wien," Mitteilungen des Vereines fur Geschichte der Stadt Wien, 10/11 (1929-1930): pp. 11-76. On the devastations of Lower Austria by Turkish invaders in 1529 and later years, consult Stbller's unpublished "Die Verwiistungen Nieder6sterreichs durch feindliche Einfalle (1529, 1532 u. 1683)" (Wien, Museum Oesterreichischer Kultur, MS 64b, 1946).

8 The role of the Turkish question in German politics during the years 1529-1532 is thoroughly treated in Fischer-Galati, pp. 38-56.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 7


took place on Austrian soil, although the akinji again devastated the countryside and engaged in some bloody skirmishes with the German troops in the Vienna Woods.'

After 1532 Suleiman remained absent from the Dan- ubian front for almost a decade, largely because he was occupied with wars against Persia. But the conflict between Ottoman and Habsburg did not come to a standstill; the troops of the Ottoman Pasha of Bosnia made frequent raids into the neighboring Habsburg territories of Croatia and Slavonia. In 1537 a punitive expedition sent by Ferdinand suffered a severe defeat near the town of Esseg in Slavonia.

Meanwhile, the Hungarian conflict between Ferdi- nand and Zapolya continued intermittently until 1538, when Zapolya, having lost the favor of the Sultan, made peace with Ferdinand. The Treaty of Grosswardein (1538) divided Hungary between the two kings, with the reservation that Ferdinand was to become sole ruler after Zapolya's death. But when Zapolya died suddenly in 1540, his widow Isabella and her supporters proclaimed as king his infant son, John Sigismund Zapolya. "Infuriated by this violation of the Treaty of Gross- wardein, Ferdinand decided to force his claim" to the Hungarian throne.10 He led an army against Buda, but he was not to succeed in taking the city. Isabella appealed to Suleiman for aid, thus giving the Sultan a pretext for decisive intervention in Hungary. By this time Suleiman had decided that the only effective way of controlling Hungary was to bring that country under direct Turkish administration. In 1541 his troops cut to pieces the army of Ferdinand as well as the contingents sent to its aid by the German Estates; and by August of that year Buda and Pest were in Turkish hands. Suleiman himself then encamped at Buda and proclaimed the young John Sigismund king, with the Sultan as regent. This arrangement was essentially a fiction; in reality a vast portion of Hungary, the region between the Danube and the Theiss, now became a Turkish province. Suleiman established an Ottoman governor and permanent garrison in the Hungarian capital.

The consolidation of the Turkish hold on Hungary alarmed the German Estates, who feared that Hungary might now become a base for Turkish invasions of both Austria and the main bulk of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1542 a German army attempted to evict the Turk from Hungary but failed to do so.

In the ensuing years the Danubian situation became relatively stabilized. For the moment both Suleiman and Ferdinand were unwilling to resume the struggle; in 1547 they concluded a truce on the basis of the territorial status quo. Central and southern Hungary remained a Turkish province; Transylvania was ruled by the Zapolyas under the suzerainty of the Sultan;

9 St6ller, "Verwiistungen Niederosterreichs," pp. 2, 5-7. 10 Fischer-Galati, p. 76.

and only a narrow strip of territory in western and northern Hungary remained to the Habsburgs.

The map of Hungary changed but little in the century and a half that followed. There were frequent border clashes between the Turkish and Habsburg forces, and occasionally there were major hostilities in which the German Estates also participated. In 1663 the Turks advanced into Habsburg Hungary and threatened to invade Austria, but were checked by the Imperial Gen- eral Raimondo Montecuccoli in the battle of St. Gotthard (1664).

Less than twenty years later the Moslem armies were again on the march in Central Europe. In 1683 they besieged Vienna for the second and final time, now under the leadership of Kara Mustafa ("Black Mus- tafa"), the ambitious grand vizir who may have dreamed of establishing a new Moslem state in Central Europe with himself as ruler. The siege was a gigantic failure. Vienna was rescued by an army composed of German Imperial troops led by Duke Charles of Lorraine and Poles commanded by King John Sobieski. The Christian forces won a decisive victory, capturing the camp of Kara Mustafa and routing his army.

The year 1683 was one of history's great turning points. It was followed by the "Great Turkish War" of 1684-1699, in which the Austrians, supported by the German Estates, the Papacy, and Poland, waged a mighty counteroffensive against the Turks in Hungary. The war ended with the establishment of Habsburg rule over almost the whole of Hungary, including Transyl- vania." Never again were the Turks to threaten the security of Central Europe.

Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Ottoman Turk, as "enemy of Christendom," was an important theme in the thought and literature of Germany and Europe. The widespread interest in "the Turk" stemmed in large measure from the concern and anxiety aroused by Turkish attacks on Christian states in the Danubian basin and in the Mediterranean. But this is only a partial explanation, as European curiosity about the Moslem infidels was by no means a new phenomenon. It had been strong in the age of the Crusades and had persisted in more or less intense form throughout the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It had often found expression in literature, as for example in such classics as Aucassin et Nicolette, Dante's Divine Comedy, and the Decameron of Boc- caccio.

Similarly, the medieval crusading ideology remained alive long after the great crusades to the Holy Land had passed into history. After the thirteenth century the rulers of Christian Europe no longer seriously intended to take united action against the infidel; yet the crusading ideal continued to appeal strongly to the

11 There is a dramatic account of this war in John B. Wolf, The Emergence of the Great Powers, 1685-1715 (New York, Harper, 1951), pp. 20-34, 50-51.

8 [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC'

THE SETTING

European imagination. From the fourteenth century onward crusade projects directed specifically against the Ottoman Turks circulated throughout Europe. After the fall of Constantinople, Pope Calixtus III (1455-1458) actually proclaimed a crusade but met with little response except from Capistrano and his followers, the men who marched to the relief of Bel- grade in 1456. The herculean efforts of the next Pope, Pius II (1458-1464) to bring about a general crusade ended in complete failure. Another advocate of a crusade was the Habsburg Emperor Maximilian I (1493-1519), a natural opponent of the Turks in view of their frequent raids into Carniola, Styria, and Carin- thia.

Maximilian seems to have been motivated by the traditional crusading ideal with a strong admixture of personal and dynastic ambition. He aspired to lead a general European crusade which, in addition to securing the frontiers of his territories, would lead to the expulsion of the Turks from Constantinople and the establishment of a Habsburg-Byzantine empire. His project received no support from the German Imperial Estates, let alone the rulers of Western Europe; but it appealed strongly to such German humanistic intellectuals as Sebastian Brant and Ulrich von Hutten, who "clamored in speeches and writings for immediate action." 12

Toward the end of Maximilian's reign a similar project circulated among the general public in the form of the anonymous pamphlet, Das ist ein anschlag eyns zugs wider die Tiirckenn, Vnnd alle die wyder den Christenlichen Glawbenn seyndt (Project for a Crusade

against the Turks and All Other Enemies of the Christian Faith [1518?]). The author envisaged a general European crusade aiming at nothing less than the Christian reconquest of the Holy Sepulcher and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire.13 There is no

12 Fischer-Galati, p. 10. On the medieval background, see N. Daniel, Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edin- burgh, University Press, 1960) and R. W. Southern, Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1962). The role of the crusading ideal during the Renaissance is thoroughly discussed in the fine study by Robert Schwoebel, The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renais- sance Image of the Turk (1453-1517) (New York, St. Martin's Press, 1967), esp. pp. 30-175, 216-219.

13 The content of the pamphlet is discussed below, pp. 35-36. Seven or eight separate editions seem to have appeared in

1518. For bibliographical data, see K. M. Kertbeny, Ungarn betreffende deutsche Erstlings-Drucke, 1454-1600 (Budapest, Universitats-Buchdruckerei, 1880), Nos. 129-136; Carl Gollner, Turcica: Die europiischen Tiirkendrucke des XVI. Jahrhun- derts (Bucuresti, Editura Academiei R. P. R., 1961), Nos. 105- 109.

Fresh editions of the pamphlet appeared in 1522, 1532, 1541, and 1542, that is, at times when Suleiman's offensives in the Danubian basin had rekindled the German public's interest in crusade projects. For bibliographical details on these later editions, see G6llner, Nos. 111, 450a, 701-703, 762; Kertbeny, Nos. 179-180, 556.

The editions published during 1518-1542 appeared under four different titles (see the bibliography of the present study).

doubt that the pamphlet was widely read, as it went through a number of different editions in the year of its publication and at later times. Since it seems to have originated prior to the fall of Belgrade, its contents reflected not any major Turkish threat to Central Europe but the continuing appeal of the crusading tradition.

Naturally the wars and conquests of Suleiman the Magnificent brought about an intensification of the

European concern with the Turkish theme. There was much discussion of the Turkish menace to Christendom, not only in Germany and Italy but even in countries that were in no sense directly exposed to Moslem attacks, as for example in France, England, and the Netherlands. The pan-European character of interest in the Turk is abundantly evident from the literature of the period. Books and pamphlets concerning the Turk and his wars against the Christians appeared both in Latin and in the vernacular languages, and in many cases were more or less rapidly translated from one

language to another.14

Neither G6llner nor Kertbeny seems to have been aware that these are different titles of the same pamphlet rather than of separate pamphlets.

There is a basically similar though considerably more detailed crusade project (possibly a revision of the Anschlag of 1518) in S. Wolder, Tiirckischer Untergang . . . Welcher Gestalt ... der Gross-Tirke ... zu iiber-winden wdre? (revised ed., 1664; originally published in 1558).

14The most up-to-date bibliography is Gillner, Turcica (1961), which however confines itself to the first half of the sixteenth century and does not supersede the valuable older works by Kertbeny (see n. 13, above) and S. Apponyi, Hun- garica; Ungarn betreffende, im Auslande gedruckte Biicher und Flugschriften (3 v., Miinchen, J. Rosenthal, 1903-1927). Still useful, especially for the period after 1600, is the bibliography in J. von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches (10 v., Pest, Hartleben, 1827-1835) 10: pp. 57-336.

There are various monographic studies of the Turkish theme in early modern European literature: D. C. Rouillard, The Turk in French History, Thought, and Literature (1520-1660) (Paris, Boivin, [1941]); S. C. Chew, The Crescent and the Rose: Islam in England during the Renaissance (New York, Oxford University Press, 1937); B. P. Smith, Islam in English Liter- ature (Beirut, Lebanon, American Press, 1939). Unfortunately there is no similarly comprehensive treatment of the Turk in German literature. An extremely brief survey is found in B. Kamil, Die Tiirken in der deutschen Literatur bis zum Barock und die Sultangestalten in den Tiirkendramen Lohensteins (published doctoral dissertation, Kiel, 1935), pp. 5-24. Particular aspects are treated in W. Gerstenberg, Zur Geschichte des deutschen Tiirkenschauspiels (Meppen, Wegener, 1902); G. Niemann, Die Dialogliteratur der Reformationszeit nach ihrer Entstehung und Entwicklung (Leipzig, Voigtlander, 1905); C. J. Cosack, "Zur Litteratur der Tiirkengebete im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert," in his Zur Geschichte der evangelischen ascetischen Litteratur in Deutschland (Basel, Riehm, 1871), pp. 163- 242; H. Kabdebo (ed.), Die Dichtungen des Hans Sachs zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien (Wien, Faesy & Frick, 1878); R Wolkan, Zu den Tiirkenliedern des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Wien, by the author, 1904); H. Patrias, "Die Tiirkenriege im Volks- lied" (unpublished dissertation, Wien, 1947). The texts of some songs and ballads about "the Turk" are reproduced in R.

9 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


In Germany, because of the proximity of Suleiman's hosts, the discussion of the Turkish peril took on a special urgency. The imagination of people from all strata of society was fired by what was generally regarded as an actual or potential threat to the Christian religion and to the established order. The fears and anxieties aroused by the Turk expressed themselves in various kinds of literature ranging from the systematic theological treatise to the folk ballad and the spontaneous prayer for divine help and deliverance from the infidel foe. For purposes of communication extensive use was made of the printed pamphlet, that "mass medium" which had already proved its effectiveness in the religious struggles of the Reformation.

This monograph deals with pamphlets of a certain type, the propaganda tracts known to contemporaries and to modern German historians as Tiirkenbiichlein (booklets concerning the Turk).15 In the absence of an equivalent English term I shall refer to these pamphlets as Tiirkenbiichlein throughout this study.

Written by men from various walks of life, the Tiirkenbiichlein expressed the more or less direct and spontaneous responses of their authors to the Turkish offensives on the Danube from Suleiman's conquest of Belgrade (1521) to Kara Mustafa's siege of Vienna (1683). By far the most original and important pamphlets appeared during the first two decades of this long period, that is, during the years 1522-1543, with which this study is primarily concerned. Well before the end of these two decades the themes, arguments, and slogans in the Tiirkenbiichlein had become standardized and stereotyped. The numerous later pamphlets contain little more than repetition of the old arsenal of ideas and expressions, hauled out of the closet in a kind of habitual response to the most recent Turkish attack on the territories of the Habsburgs.

von Liliencron (ed.), Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen vom 13. bis 16. Jahrhundert (5 v., Leipzig, Vogel, 1865-1869) 3: Nos. 306, 348, 364, 402-404, 408-419; 4: Nos. 421, 438-440, 442, 467, 473-475.

The Turkish impact upon German public opinion is treated in the useful but excessively brief and sketchy work by R. Eber- mann, Die Tiirkenfurcht; Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der iffentlichen Meinung in Deutschland wahrend der Reformations- zeit (published doctoral dissertation, Halle a. S., 1904). Even more superficial is A. Scholtze, Die orientalische Frage in der offentlichen Meinung des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Franken- berg, Realschule, 1880).

For the Ottoman impact upon Europe as a whole, see D. M. Vaughn, Europe and the Turk: A Pattern of Alliances, 1350- 1700 (Liverpool, University Press, 1954) and P. Coles, The Ottoman Impact on Europe (London, Thames and Hudson, 1968, and New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968).

15 German historians also call these pamphlets Tiirkenschriften or Tiirkentraktate. This monograph does not treat pamphlets containing governmental propaganda, folk songs, ballads, hymns, "prophecies" concerning the Turk, or newe zeyttungen (narrative accounts) of particular events in the Turkish wars.

II. THE TURKENBUCHLEIN AND THEIR AUTHORS

The publication of Tiirkenbiichlein began in the spring of 1522, a few months after the fall of Belgrade. Although Belgrade was far away, the more alert and informed persons among the German people had some idea of the strategic importance of the great fortress on the Danube. Already a few pessimists were expressing fears of a Turkish onslaught through Hungary into Austria, Bavaria, and other German lands 1; but calmer spirits believed that the danger to Germany was still remote.2

There was, at any rate, much curiosity about the Turk, and the reading public must have welcomed the appearance of an anonymous pamphlet that discussed in great detail the Turkish threat to Central Europe and to Christendom as a whole. The pamphlet bears the title Tiircken biechlin,3 a South German dialectical variant of Tiirkenbiichlein. Its readers must have wondered about the identity of the obviously intelligent and educated author. Like many other writers of the period, from Erasmus to the popular propagandists of the Reformation, the author couched his tract in the form of a dialogue. The discussion is between four persons who happen to meet outside the walls of Belgrade shortly after its capture by the Sultan: a Turkish spy (the villain of the piece); his assistant, a gypsy; a Hungarian who is worried about the future of his country; and a Catholic hermit (the hero of the piece), who is deeply concerned about the Turkish menace to all Christendom. The hermit and the Turk do most of the talking.

The Turk is confident that his "emperor," the Sultan, will soon make further conquests at the expense of Christendom. He boasts of his emperor's vast power, which he attributes largely to the civil and military virtues of the Turkish people and to their unity under the absolute authority of the Sultan. At the same time, he maintains that the various Christian nations will not be able to offer serious military resistance to Turkish aggression. He belittles the Christians because of their constant wars with one another, their lack of unity in the face of the Turkish menace, and their many other shortcomings. Of all the Christian nations, he says, the Germans are the least feared by the Turks. The German Emperor has an impressive list of titles but little real power because his own subjects will not obey him. Although the Germans were formidable soldiers in the old days, their military spirit has de- clined and their soldiers have become almost useless because of drunkenness, gluttony, and lack of discipline, in contrast to the sobriety and discipline of the Turks.

1 Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder 3: Nos. 348, 364; Patrias, "Die Turkenkriege im Volkslied," pp. 36-38.

2 Cf. Fischer-Galati, Ottoman Imperialism, pp. 17-18. 3 Tiircken biechlin. Ain Nutzlich Gesprech oder Vnderrede

etlicher personen .. . (1522).


THE TURKENBUCHLEIN AND THEIR AUTHORS

Finally, the Turkish spy advises the Christians, "especially the Hungarians, Germans and Poles," to submit voluntarily to the rule of the Sultan; if they do so, he promises that they will be treated well; if not, the Sultan will subjugate them with the "bloody sword."

The hermit admits that some of these contentions are unfortunately true: the Christians do have their shortcomings, and it would be a good thing if they were as united and efficient as the Turks. But he emphatically denies that the Sultan is a just ruler and brands him as a tyrant who oppresses his Christian subjects. Nat- urally he opposes voluntary submission to the Sultan's rule and advises the Germans and other Europeans vigorously to resist Turkish aggression. But he warns that the Christians will not find it easy to defeat the Turk because they have provoked the wrath of God by their many sins. It is in order to punish the Christians that God has allowed the Turk to become so mighty. But if the Christians turn from their wickedness and then take military action, God will undoubtedly give them victory over the infidel foe. The hermit adds a long list of concrete suggestions relative to warfare against the Turk; he exhorts the rulers of Europe to provide for the defense of Hungary and to make careful preparations for offensive military action against the Ottoman Empire.

Obviously the Tiircken biechlin is a combination of anti-Turkish propaganda and ideas concerning the moral and political reform of the Holy Roman Empire and Christendom in general. The author's main argument is that the Christians must desist from sin and put their own house in order before they can free themselves from the Turkish menace.

The author's point of view seems to have been shared by many of his readers, for the Tiircken biechlin immediately became a best seller and went through various new editions in later years when the Turkish menace again appeared acute.4 Its basic themes were to recur in many other pamphlets, not necessarily in conscious or unconscious imitation, but simply because the author's ideas were typical of the age. He and the other pamphleteers regarded the Turkish danger not merely as a political and military problem but as an aspect of the moral and spiritual crisis of their age.

Several other tracts appeared during the early and middle 1520's. The anonymous and undated How to Conquer Turkey 5 was apparently occasioned by the fall

4 Seven separate editions seem to have appeared in 1522: See Gollner, Turcica, Nos. 172-175, Kertbeny, Ungarn betreffende deutsche Erstlings-Drucke, Nos. 159, 160, 162. New editions appeared in 1527, the year after the battle of Moh'acs (G6llner, Nos. 289-291) and in 1537, after the defeat of Ferdinand's army at Esseg (Kertbeny, Nos. 504-505).

5 Anzeigung ze eroberen die Tiircky, vnd erlosung der Christenheit ... [1523?].

For the convenience of the English reader, I have translated the titles whenever they are descriptive of the contents or are interesting for some other reason. The original German titles, because of their great length, are cited in these footnotes only

of Rhodes (1522), an event that naturally aroused interest in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Despite its title the pamphlet is only secondarily concerned with the Turkish question; its main purpose is the reform of the monasteries and the defense of Catholicism against Lutheran attacks. The author tries to prove that monasticism, if purged of its abuses, could be useful to Christendom. He tells the story of the monks of the mythical kingdom of "Wolfaria," who donated their wealth to enable their king to finance a war against the Turks. Some of the monks themselves volunteered for combat and with God's help won a great victory over the infidels.

In 1523 the imperial knight Hartmut von Kronberg wrote a Tiirkenbiichlein in the form of an open letter to Pope Adrian VI.6 A well-known Lutheran polemicist, Kronberg directed his pamphlet more against the Roman Catholic Church than against the Turk. In- credible as it may seem, he calls upon the Pope to abolish the Papacy and secularize the wealth of the Church, thus making funds available for a grand European military and naval offensive against the Turk. It is not clear whether Kronberg was naive enough to believe that the Pope might follow his advice.

More important, or at any rate more widely read, was an anonymous Tiirkenbiichlein that appeared in early 1526, shortly before the battle of Mohacs, under the title Excerpt from a Letter Written by a Resident of Turkey to His Friend in These [German] Lands.7 The "letter" is undoubtedly fictitious; actually the pamphlet is a propaganda tract designed to warn the Germans that the Turk is an efficient, powerful, and determined enemy against whom all Christians should be on guard. The author urges the Germans to end their factional quarrels and to close ranks in case of a Turkish attack. Despite the Turkish threat to Hungary (which he does not explicitly mention) he advocates vigilance rather than immediate military action on the part of the Germans. Evidently he does not regard Turkish imperialism as an immediate danger to the security of the Holy Roman Empire.

By the end of 1526 the Letter had gone through a number of editions, presumably because the battle of Mohacs had kindled the German public's interest in "the Turk." 8 There was much sympathy with the sufferings endured by the Christian Hungarians, as we

in abbreviated form. The full titles are listed under "Main Sources" in the bibliography.

6 "Eyn sendbrieff an Babst Adrianum . . ," reprinted in Die Schriften Hartmuths von Cronberg, ed. E. Kiick (Halle, Nie- meyer, 1899), pp. 117 ff. The pamphlet appeared in three separate editions (G6llner, Nos. 180-181, and notes there).

7 Ausszug aines Brieffs, iene ainer, so in der Tiirckey wonhafft, seinem Freiind in dise Land geschriben ....

8 About a dozen separate editions seem to have appeared in 1526 (Kertbeny, Nos. 231-242; cf. Gollner, Nos. 246-250). There were fresh editions in 1543 and 1547 (Gillner, Nos. 813, 874).

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 11


know from the Tiirkenbiichlein and from other sources.9 There was also a widespread awareness of the increased Turkish threat to the Holy Roman Empire. Even now, however, the danger of a Turkish attack on Germany was not immediate, as Suleiman withdrew from Hun- gary after Mohacs instead of occupying that country. Most Germans, therefore, seem to have regarded the Turkish problem as less important than the great issues of the Reformation. This is evident, for example, from an anonymous Catholic tract 10 which uses the Turkish theme as a convenient polemical weapon against Luther- anism. The pamphlet purports to be an exchange of letters between a follower of Luther and a Catholic priest. The Lutheran laments the devastation of Hun- gary and expresses the fear that Germany may soon suffer a similar fate. He argues that the Germans deserve a Turkish invasion as a divine punishment for their failure unanimously to abandon "popery." The priest also deplores the defeat of "the strong, manly Hungarian nation, which for more than a hundred years was a firm bastion" protecting "the German lands" from "the chief enemy of the Christian name-the Turk." But the priest insists that the real cause of the intensified Turkish threat to Germany is the rise of Lutheranism and other heresies, false doctrines that have provoked the wrath of God.

It was not until 1529 that Luther himself issued a detailed statement of his views on the Turkish problem. His earlier pronouncements on the subject had been fragmentary and inconsistent. Repeatedly he had condemned as un-Christian the "crusades" or "holy wars" that were still being preached by the Papacy, as they had been for centuries. Beyond this he had made statements that could be and were interpreted as opposition to all kinds of military action against the Turks. He had said, for example, that "to fight against the Turks is to oppose the judgment God visits upon our iniquities through them." Small wonder that some Lutherans were advocating non-resistance to Turkish attacks, while Catholics accused Luther and his followers of dis- loyalty to the Empire and to Christendom. Luther himself gradually changed his views, coming to believe that Turkish aggression was to be resisted like plagues, famines, floods, and forest fires (which were also divine

9 Folk songs, ballads, and newe zeyttungen narrated the events of Suleiman's Mohacs campaign, emphasizing Turkish atrocities, or expressed commiseration with the young widow of King Louis II, Mary of Habsburg. See Kertbeny, Nos. 254-293; Gollner, Nos. 237-275; Liliencron, 3: Nos. 402-404. Martin Luther addressed to the bereaved Queen Mary his pamphlet, Four Consoling Psalms (Vier tristliche Psalmen), in which he interpreted the collapse of Hungary as a divine punishment for the sins of the Roman Church. See D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar, Bohlau, 1883 and proceeding) 19: pp. 542- 615. The impact of Mohacs upon German public opinion is discussed in Fischer-Galati, pp. 29-30 and Patrias, pp. 39-49.

10 Ein Sendbrieff darjnn angetzeigt wird vermeinte vrsach warumb der Turck widder die Hungern triumphirt vf obgelegen hab . . . (Dresden, W. Stockel, 1527). There was also an earlier edition published in 1526 (Gollner, No. 286).

visitations). But he insisted that such a defensive war must be waged under the command of the Emperor and territorial rulers; it must not be a crusade fought under the leadership of the Church. By 1528, when a Turkish attack on the Empire seemed imminent, Luther had decided that he must explain his position in detail." This he did in his well-known theological treatise, On War against the Turks,l2 begun in 1528 and published in 1529. Characteristically, Luther calls the Turk "a scourge of God and a servant of the devil." On the one hand, the Turk is an agent of divine punishment for the sins of the Christians; on the other, he propagates the diabolical teachings of Islam and wages aggressive wars against his Christian neighbors. Luther strongly supports armed resistance to the Turk so long as its purpose is the defense of lives, property, and the legitimate civil authorities. But he continues to reject "holy wars" for the defense of the Cross, arguing that the Christian faith must be defended not by the sword but by prayer and spiritual discipline.

After Suleiman's retreat from Vienna, Luther again took up his pen "against the Turk" because he correctly anticipated another Turkish attack. In his Mili- tant Sermon against the Turk 13 (1529) he completed the task of placing the Turkish question into the context of his theology. He now endowed the Turkish peril with an eschatological significance, interpreting it as a sign of the impending end of the world. But Luther's second Tiirkenbiichlein, like its predecessor, was intended not as an abstract treatise but as a guide to conduct and action. Once again he exhorted the Germans to resist Turkish aggression and to pray against the spread of Islam. One of the most interesting portions of the tract instructs the Christian reader in the proper course to follow in case of capture by the Turk. Evi- dently fearing that such captives might be tempted to embrace Islam, Luther exhorted the Christians to remain steadfast in the faith under all circumstances.

Luther's tracts of 1529 set the pattern for the many Tiirkenbiichlein written by his followers. In the same year Justus Jonas, Professor of Theology at the Uni- versity of Wittenberg, published The Seventh Chapter

11 On the evolution of Luther's views, see K. M. Setton, "Lutheranism and the Turkish Peril," Balkan Studies 3 (1962): pp. 133-168, esp. pp. 141-153. See also Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 91-97, 108-112; H. Lamparter, Luthers Stellung zum Tiirkenkrieg (dissertation, Tiibingen, 1940), pp. 10-11, 70-75; H. Buchanan, "Luther and the Turks, 1519-1529," Archiv fiir Reformationsgeschichte 47, Part II (1956): pp. 145- 159. Buchanan and Lamparter, both strong admirers of Luther, are unwilling to admit his inconsistency. Setton's account is much more critical and convincing.

12 "Vom Kriege wider die Tiirken," Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 82-148.

13 "Heerpredigt wider den Tiirken," Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 149-197. The word Heerpredigt (literally "army sermon" or "sermon to the army") has a much broader meaning in Luther's tract, which is an exhortation addressed not only to soldiers but also to civilians and rulers. Hence my translation, "militant sermon."



of Daniel; Concerning the Blasphemy and Horrible Murderings of the Turk.l4 Like Luther, Jonas in- veighs against Islam and depicts the Turk as a scourge of God, an agent of Satan, and a portent of the impending Last Judgment.

In 1531 Johannes Brenz, the leading pioneer of the Reformation in the town of Schwabisch-Hall and the duchy of Wiirttemberg, issued a tract entitled Booklet on the Turk: How Preachers and Laymen Should Con- duct Themselves if the Turk Were to Invade Ger- many.l5 The title is a notable indication of the fear of a Turkish incursion that prevailed throughout the years between Suleiman's two assaults on Austria (1529-1532). Brenz's pamphlet may be regarded as a typical Protestant Tiirkenbiichlein; it reads like a brief summary of the more extensive tracts by Luther and Jonas. For this reason I have provided a translation of the entire pamphlet in the appendix to this study. It may be added that Brenz's tract seems to have been one of the most widely read Tiirkenbiichlein, for it appeared in many separate editions and printings.16

Different in emphasis is the devotional tract by another Lutheran minister, Sebald Heyden of Nuremberg: How to Comfort Oneself, Strengthen One's Faith, and Attain Christian Patience in All Afflictions such as the Turk, Pestilence, and High Prices (1531).17 Ad- dressing himself to the individual Christian, Heyden exhorts him to lead a godly life, relying upon God to give such aid and comfort against the Turk as He chooses to provide. Unlike Luther, Brenz, and most

14J. Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, von des Tiircken Gottes lesterung vnd schrecklicher morderey (Wittenberg, H. Lufft, ca. 1530). G6llner lists five editions (Nos. 305-306, 380- 382), all published in 1529-1530. Jonas wrote this tract in collaboration with Philip Melanchthon, even though the latter's name is not mentioned in the pamphlet; see M. K6hler, Melanch- thon und der Islam (Leipzig, Klotz, 1938), pp. 20-21. Melanch- thon's view of the Turkish question was, in most respects, very similar to that of Luther.

15 J. Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein. Wie sich Prediger und Leien halten sollen, so der Tiirck das Deudsche Land vberfallen wiirde ... (Wittenberg, G. Rhaw, 1537). The original edition of 1531 has not been accessible to me. On Brenz, see Neue Deutsche Biographie 2: pp. 598-599 and references there.

16 W. K6hler, Bibliographia Brentiana (Berlin, Schwetschke, 1904) lists two editions published in 1531 (Nos. 47, 48); three that appeared in 1537 (Nos. 94-96); and one published in 1542 (No. 117). Mention should also be made of another work by Brenz, Zwo vnd zwaintzig Predig den Tiirckischen . . . krieg betreffend (Twenty-Two Sermons concerning the Turkish War

. .., 1532). This book appeared in a number of German and Latin editions between 1532 and 1538 (W. Kohler's bibliography, Nos. 52, 53, 56, 64, 65, 101). In content these sermons are similar to Brenz's Tiircken Biichlein. There is a brief summary of the sermons in Julius Hartmann, Johannes Brenz (Elberfeld, Friderichs, 1862), pp. 69-74.

17 S. Heyden, Wie man sich in allerlay nitten, des Tiircken, Pestilentz, Theiirung, etc. tristen, den glauben stercken, vnd Christliche gedult erlangen soil . . . (Niirnberg, F. Peypus, 1531). On Heyden, see G. G. Zeltner, Kurze Erliiuterung der Niirnbergischen Schul- und Reformations-geschichte, aus dem Leben und Schriften des beriihmten Sebald Heyden (Niirnberg, Endter, 1732).

other pamphleteers, Heyden shows no interest in warfare against the Turk or even in its theological justification; he treats the Turkish peril simply as one divine visitation among many.

A similar attitude of Christian resignation pervades Wolfgang Kanzler's Why God is Causing the Turk So Fiercely to Attack the Christians and with a Blood- thirsty Hand to Massacre, Torment, and Enslave Them (1532?).18 For information on this little-known author we must rely on such internal evidence as is found in the pamphlet itself. Most probably he was a Catholic priest in some village or country town in southern Germany or Austria. At any rate, his tract is almost certainly a printed sermon and is notable for its sincerity and lively style. Kanzler, too, attributes the Turkish peril to the sins of the Christians, urges them to repent, and argues that protection from the Turk lies in the aid of God rather than in the might of human armies.

This lack of interest in military action is no more typical of the Catholic pamphlets than it is of their Lutheran counterparts. The usual Catholic view appears, for example, in the anonymous sermon tract, A Reminder of the Deserved Afflictions of Germany; With a Sincere Exhortation to Christian Repentance and Dutiful Aid to the Archduchy of Austria against the Fiendish Design and Terrible Attack of the Turk (1529?).19 The author argues that the Germans owe military and financial assistance to their hard-pressed Christian brethren in Austria; and he represents the struggle against the Turk as a crusade or holy war in the name of the Cross.

Another crusading enthusiast was the itinerant bookseller and publisher Johann Haselberg, who was by avocation a collector of pamphlets on the Turk and on the medieval crusades. In 1530 he issued a pamphlet from his own pen which contains a narrative account of Suleiman's Vienna campaign as well as fantastic reveries concerning a great European crusade to be waged in the future against the Ottoman Empire. Strongly Catholic and pro-Habsburg, Haselberg hoped that Charles V, at the head of the armies of Christen- dom, would effect the expulsion of the Turk from Europe as well as the Christian reconquest of the Holy Sepulcher.20

18 W. Kanzler, Auss was vrsache Gott dem Tiircken verhengt das er die Christenheit so starck vber seucht vnd mit blutdiirstiger hand, ermordt verfolgt vnd hin wegk fiurt ....

19 Erinnerung der verschulten plagen, des Teutschlands, sampt ainer getrewen ermanung zu Christenlicher bekerung, vnnd schuldiger hilff, wider des Tiircken ... erschrockenlichen angriff, in dem Ertzhertzogtumb Osterreich gethun.

20 J. Haselberg, Des Tiirckische Kaysers Heerzug, wie er . . . Fur die kiniglichen stat Ofen . . . vnnd Wien . . . gezoge, die belegert vn gestiirmt . . . mit angehenckter ermanung, der grausamen tyranney des Tiircken, wyder Christliche Nation ... (Niirnberg, C. Zell, 1530). On Haselberg, see F. W. E. Roth, "Johann Haselberg von Reichenau, Verleger und Buchfiihrer, 1515-1538," Archiv fur Geschichte des Deutschen Buchhandels 18 (1896): pp. 16-18.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 13


In 1531 Georg Agricola issued an Oration, Address, and Exhortation21 in which he called upon King Ferdinand and the German Estates to wage a mighty offensive crusade against the Ottoman Empire. A Catholic with a broad humanistic education, Agricola spent most of his life in Saxony and Bohemia as an educator, physician, scientist, and expert on mining and metallurgy.22 His outlook was considerably more secular than that of the other pamphleteers; he viewed the Turkish question primarily as a military and economic problem rather than as a divine visitation. At the same time his ideas on the comparative military potentialities of Turks and Germans were absurdly naive. He regarded the Turks not as proficient warriors but as "effeminate Asiatics" and believed that the Germans, with their great mineral wealth, superior technological skill, and warlike traditions, should find it easy to defeat such a puny foe. In one respect his views resembled those of the other Catholic writers: he

envisaged the eventual extirpation of the Islamic re-

ligion at the point of the sword.23 Much less optimistic were the views of Benedict

Curipeschitz, a minor official in the Austrian government and a native of Carniola, a region often visited by Turkish marauders. Of all the authors considered in this study, he seems to have been the only one who knew the Ottoman Empire at first hand. In 1530, as Latin interpreter, he accompanied a diplomatic mission sent to Constantinople by King Ferdinand in a vain effort to secure peace in Hungary. It was apparently because of impressions gathered during this journey that Curipeschitz had a healthy respect for the military and administrative organization of the Turkish Empire. His pamphlet was intended largely as a warning to the Germans and other Christians that in the Turk they faced a formidable military adversary. It seems possible that Curipeschitz, while expressing his own

personal views, was also acting to some extent as an unofficial propagandist for King Ferdinand, who needed

military assistance from Germany in order to meet the

anticipated Turkish attack on Austria. Written about 1531, the tract takes the form of a dialogue between two stable boys attached to the diplomatic mission, a con- versation purportedly overheard by the author at Con-

stantinople. The younger boy asks questions about the Turk which are answered by his older and wiser col-

league, who voices the opinions of the author.24 The

21 G. Agricola, Oration: anred vnd vermanung zu . . . Herrn Ferdinandum zu Vngern . . . kinig, . .. Ertzhertzog zu Oster-

reich, ... . Auch alle Churfiirsten vnd Fursten des heyligen Romischen Reichs . . . (Niirnberg, F. Peypus, 1531).

22Neue Deutsche Biographie 1 (1952): pp. 98-99; Reinhold

Hofmann, Dr. Georg Agricola (Gotha, Perthes, 1905), passim. 23There is a more detailed summary of Agricola's verbose

pamphlet in A. Scholtze, Die orientalische Frage, pp. 15 ff. 24 B. Curipeschitz, Ein Disputation oder Gesprech zwayer

Stalbuben . . . Darinien alle gewonheiten . . . vnnd Lands art der Tiirckey gemelt wirdt .... According to Gollner, No.

415, the pamphlet was published in 1531. In the same year

arguments are similar to those of the Tiircken biechlin of 1522, which Curipeschitz may well have read, as had so many of his contemporaries. But Curipeschitz expresses a much more intense fear of the Turkish threat to Central Europe than does the earlier pamphleteer.

It was in response to the Turkish war of 1532 that the Catholic priest, Matthias Kretz, wrote his Sermon on the Campaign against the Turk.2 Since this work comes closer than any other pamphlet to being the typical Catholic Tiirkenbiichlein, I have translated the entire text, which the interested reader will find in the appendix, together with the Lutheran tract by Johannes Brenz. It will be noted that Kretz accepts without question the traditional crusading ideology, representing the war against the Turk as a holy war in the name of the Cross, whereas the Protestant Brenz views the struggle against the Turk essentially as a secular war for the defense of life, property, and the legitimate civil authorities. In other respects the arguments of the two authors are quite similar.

During the years between 1532 and 1540 only a few Tiirkenbiichlein appeared, presumably because Suleiman was occupied with Near Eastern affairs, so that for the moment there was no acute Turkish threat to the Holy Roman Empire. The German public turned its attention to other problems, notably the religious issues of the Reformation. It is true that the year 1536 saw the publication of an anonymous tract in rhymed verses, Advice and Exhortation to All Kings, Princes, and Lords of Christendom, Especially to the Highest, Mightiest, and Most Invincible Emperor Charles: How We Can Effectively Combat the Pernicious Enemy of Christendonv-the Turk.26 Despite this title, however, the tract deals primarily with the sins of the Christians, the need for repentance, and the schism in the Church. The moderately Catholic author argues that the unity of the Church must be restored if the Christians, with the aid of God, are to offer successful resistance to future Turkish attacks. He proposes a general church council to bring the Lutherans back into the fold.

In 1537 the news of the defeat of Ferdinand's army at Esseg caused a brief wave of alarm in some German circles. It was presumably for this reason that both the Tiircken biechlin of 1522 and tract by Johannes Brenz suddenly appeared in new editions, sometimes bound together in the same volume.27

In 1540 the Turkish question again began to move

Curipeschitz also published a diary of the journey of Ferdinand's mission to Constantinople (Gollner, No. 416). The contents of the diary are summarized ibid.

25 M. Kretz, Ein sermon vo dem Turcken zug . . . (Landshut, J. Weyssenburger, 1532). According to Gollner, p. 222, No. 441, Kretz was active as a preacher in Augsburg and Munich, and was close to the imperial court. I have been unable to find any further biographical details.

2 Rathschlag vnd vermanung . . . Mit welcher gestalt dem schedlichen feindt der Christenheit (nemlich dem Tiircken) nit Gottes hilff, widerstandt beschehen mocht ....

27 Kertbeny, Nos. 503-506, 508.



toward the center of the stage, as Ferdinand had re- newed the Hungarian war, thus inviting Turkish intervention. In various ways the possibility of another Turkish assault on Central Europe was called to the attention of the German public. The Wittenberg printer Joseph Klug published a "tearful request" (kleglich ansuchen) for military aid addressed by the Estates of Lower Austria to those of Bohemia. Klug's printing was provided with a preface by Professor Justus Jonas in which the Lutheran theologian recapitu- lated some of the opinions previously voiced in his The Seventh Chapter of Daniel.28 The significance of the preface lies not so much in its content as in the fact that Jonas, a busy man, once again took time to alert the German people to the Turkish danger.

The year 1540 also saw the publication of a fascinat- ing pamphlet by an author who called himself "Ivo Semerin, Pannonian Carthusian." 29 As the eminent bibliographer Count Apponyi pointed out long ago, it is unlikely that the author was really named Semerin or that he was a Hungarian ("Pannonian"). Apponyi also doubted that he was a monk and believed that "Semerin" was actually an extreme adherent of Luther- anism, since he was vehemently critical of the leadership in the Catholic Church, especially the Roman curia.30 This may or may not be correct, for it seems possible that Semerin belonged to the reform-minded, anti- curialist party in the Catholic Church itself. At any rate, he seems to have been a German who was deeply worried about the religious and political disunity of Christendom in the face of the Turkish menace. He called upon the rulers of Germany and Europe to heal the schism between Catholic and Lutheran and then to take united military action against the Turk. In addition, like most of the other pamphleteers, Semerin inveighed against the sins of the Christians, depicted the Turkish menace as a divine chastisement, and preached repentance and reform.

After Suleiman's seizure of Buda (1541) German concern with the Turkish question became more intense than ever before. A larger number of Tiirkenbiichlein appeared in the years 1541 and 1542 than at any other time during the period under review. The authors were deeply aware that after a decade of intermittent en- counters with the Turk, the German armies had never yet won a decisive victory. Equally depressing was the fact that in 1541 the German forces had actually suffered defeat in Hungary.

28 J. Jonas, "An den Christlichen Leser," preface to Ein kleglich ansuchen . . . der v. Nider Osterreichischen lande belangend die grosse jtzige fahr des Tiircken halben (Wittenberg, J. Klug, 1540), leaves A2-[A4].

29 . Semerin, Ain Ernstliche, Christenliche vnnd trewe warnung, an die hichsten Heiipter vnd alle Oberkaiten Teutscher Nation, wider den aller grewlichsten blutdurstigen Christlicher Kirche Ertzfeinde den Tiircken . . . (Augsburg, P. Ulhart, 1540). 30 Apponyi, Hungarica 1: No. 274.

Shortly after the fall of Buda, Luther wrote the third and last of his tracts on the Turkish peril, Exhortation to Prayer against the Turk (1541).31 The tract shows that Luther, like many others, was even more deeply worried about the Turkish menace in 1541 than he had been in 1529. He now feared, more acutely than before, that perhaps the sinful Germans were incor- rigible, that God was about to punish the wicked nation by allowing the Turk to invade Germany or even to conquer, enslave, and Islamize large numbers of its inhabitants. Once again, as in 1529, Luther gave edify- ing advice to those who might be captured and transported by the infidel. Although he continued to exhort the faithful to pray for the victory of the Christian armies, he came close to saying that the only real hope of deliverance from the Turk lay in a speedy advent of the Last Judgment. He expressed the wish that God, instead of granting an ordinary military triumph, would hasten the end of the world.

It is interesting to note that Luther wrote this Exhortation in response to a directive from his ruler, Elector John Frederick of Saxony, who also believed that prayer was a potent weapon against the Turk.32 This was by no means the only example of close cooperation between political authorities and the religious establishments in the struggle against the Turk during the years 1541-1542. Many clergymen, both Protestant and Catholic, in sermons and pamphlets urged the Christians to pray for military victory, make voluntary contributions to the war chest, or pay willingly any special taxes that the rulers might impose.

Toward the end of 1541 the government of the imperial city of Nuremberg directed the Lutheran clergymen of that commune regularly to read prayers against the Turk during divine services. This "spiritual offensive" against the infidel became even more intense in the spring of 1542, in connection with the preparations then being made by the Nuremberg government for the military campaign in Hungary. The ruling body instructed the two leading clergymen of the city, Andreas Osiander and Veit Dietrich, frequently to preach and to conduct public prayers against the Turk.33 It was only natural for the political authorities to enlist the aid of these two eminent religious leaders. Andreas Osiander was a noted theologian; Veit Dietrich, while not an original theological thinker, was a friend of Luther and a highly respected clergyman who wrote the devotional and liturgical manuals long used in the Lutheran homes and churches of the Nuremberg area and widely imitated elsewhere.34 The Nuremberg government undoubtedly hoped that the populace would

31 Luther, "Vermahnung zum Gebet wider den Tiirken," Werke, Weimar ed., 51: pp. 577-625.

32 Ibid., pp. 577-578. 33 Bernhard Klaus, Veit Dietrich: Leben und Werk (Niirn-

berg, Verein fur Bayerische Kirchengeschichte, 1958), pp. 190- 191.

4 Ibid., pp. 423-429.

15 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


respond favorably when Osiander and Dietrich urged it to support the war against the Turk. The two clergymen needed little prompting from the political authorities. Both men were deeply worried by the Turkish peril, and both went beyond the call of duty, preaching against the Turk not only in oral sermons but also in Tiirkenbiichlein. Osiander wrote Instruction and Ex- hortation: How to Pray and Fight against the Turk (1542).35 The work is essentially a sermon-tract which clearly shows the influence of Luther's ideas; it calls upon the sinful Christians to repent and to pray for victory in the forthcoming German expedition to Hun- gary. It appeared in two separate editions and presumably exerted some influence upon the public because of the fame and prestige of its author.

Dietrich produced two Tiirkenbiichlein, both published in 1542: (a) The Twentieth Psalm of David: How We Can Correctly [and Effectively] Pray for Our Warriors; and How They Can Fight against the Turk in a Christian Spirit and Win Victory 36 and (b) How Preachers Should Exhort the People to Repentance and Earnest Prayer against the Turk; Plus a Lesson concerning Prayer, and a Brief Explanation of the Seventy-Ninth Psalm.37 Like other writers, both Protestant and Catholic, Dietrich believed that the Seventy-Ninth Psalm could and should be used as a prayer against the Turk.38 Dietrich's second pamphlet also contains two model sermons "to be used by simple parsons," consisting of exhortations to prayer against the infidel. Presumably these sermons were actually put to the intended use; they are good examples of the kind of preaching against the Turk that occurred in ordinary Lutheran country churches. For this reason I have translated the briefer of the two sermons and incorporated it in the appendix.

Another writer who was strongly under Luther's influence was Heinrich Knaust, a schoolteacher and author of popular poems and essays on various subjects. His Tiirkenbiichlein is entitled On the Lowly Origin, Shameful Life, and Ignominious Death of the Turkish Idol Mahomet, and on His Accursed Blasphemous Doc- trines; Compiled by Heinrich Knaust for All Pious Christians, to Comfort Them in These Perilous Times, and to Strengthen Their Faith in Jesus Christ

35 A. Osiander, Vnterricht, vnd vermanung, wie man wider den Tiircken peten vnd streyten soil ....

36 V. Dietrich, Der xx. Psalm Dauids, Wie man fur vnser Kriegssvolck recht betten, vnd sie sich Christlich wider den Tiircken schicken, vnd gliickselig kriegen sollen ... (Niirnberg, J. vom Berg and U. Neuber, 1542).

37 V. Dietrich, Wie man das volck zur Buss, vnd ernstlichem gebet wider den Tiircken auff der Cantzel vermanen sol. Sambt einer vnterricht vom gebet, Vnd einer kurtzen ausslenng [Ausle- gung] des LXXIX. Psalmen . . . (Niirnberg, Berg and Neuber, 1542).

38 Since the numbering of Psalms in the Vulgate is different from that in Protestant Bibles, Catholic writers spoke of Psalm 78 rather than 79. (See, for example, the translation of Kretz's pamphlet in the appendix, p. 42, n. 3).

(1542).39 Like Luther, Knaust feared that German soldiers and civilians might be captured by the Turk and tempted to apostatize. His pamphlet, of course, was designed to prove that Islam is a sure road to damnation and that Christian captives must hold fast to the faith. In addition to attacking Islam, Knaust exhorts the Christians to repent and to pray for victory.

More comprehensive in scope is Joachim Greff's Exhortation to the Entire German Nation against the Turkish Tyrant (1541).40 A schoolteacher by pro- fession, Greff was also active as a Lutheran polemicist and author of popular dramas. His discus- ion of the Turkish peril, however, does not take the form of a drama or dialogue but differs little from a sermon, except that it is written in rhymed verses whose literary quality leaves much to be desired. In content it is little more than a reiteration and summary of the ideas expressed by Luther in his various tracts against the Turk.

The Turkish war of 1542 prompted Friedrich Nausea, the Catholic bishop of Vienna, to issue A General Model Sermon, along with Some Pious Prayers for the Attainment of Victory; To Be Used by Chaplains Ministering to the Warriors in the Field.41 Nausea assures the Christian soldiers that they are fighting for a just cause and may kill Turks with an easy conscience. In this connection he uses much space to refute the pacifist arguments of the Anabaptists, a strange subject to stress in a sermon intended for violently inclined mercenaries. Nausea was otherwise noted as a keen polemicist against the Lutherans; but in his sermon on the Turkish war he seems carefully to refrain from any statement definitely offensive to them. He must have felt that on this occasion it was essential for Catholics and Lutherans to present a united front to the common enemy.

It was also in 1542 that the Bavarian nobleman, Bernhardin Tiirck zum Biirgel (his real name) wrote two pamphlets on the subject of war against the Turk.

Apparently Bernhardin Tiirck and his family had com- mercial interests in Hungary, a fact that may well provide at least a partial explanation of his strong anti- Turkish bias and his alarm over Suleiman's conquest of Hungary. His first tract bears the title, Clear Proof

39 H. Knaust, Von geringe herkommen, schentlichem leben, schmehlichem ende, des Tiirckischen Abgots Mahomets, vn seiner verdammlichen vnd Gotsslesterlichen Leer, alien frommen Christen zu disen geferlichen zeiten, zur sterckung vnd trost inM glauben an Jesum Christum ... zusamenn gebracht .... On Knaust, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 16 (1882).

40J. Greff, Vermanung an gantze Deudsche Nation, widder den Tiirckischen Tyrannen .. . (Wittenberg, Veit Creutzer, 1541). On Greff, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 9 (1879).

41 [F. Nausea], Ein gemeyn Exempler Predig sambt etlichen gotseligen gebeten . . . vmb erlangung des Syges, fir die Pre- dicanten zu den Kriegssleiiten .... On Nausea, see Joseph Metzner, Friedrich Nausea (Regensburg, Manz, 1884), passim, esp. pp. 60, 62, 68, 98 f.; H. Gollob, Friedrich Nausea (Wien, by the author, 1952), pp. 94, 97.



That the Turk, a Hereditary Foe of all Christians, Never Keeps either Faith or Promise; Based on the Record of His Actions in Recent Years. Our Warriors Would Do Well to Remember That the Turks, after Each Victorious Battle, Conquest, and Armistice, Im- mediately Begin to Tyrannize More over Those Who Surrendered to Them Than Over Those Who Resisted. Therefore It is Better to Fight Them Bravely Than Make a [Peace] Treaty with Them (1542).42 Actually the author addressed his pamphlet not so much to the "warriors" proper as to the German political rulers, for he submitted the tract to the Imperial Diet of Speyer (1542). He urged the rulers to aim for nothing less than complete victory, apparently suspecting them of being content with halfway measures because of a luke- warm attitude to military action against the Turk. (Some German princes, as is well known, tended to regard the Ottomans as a convenient counterweight to the Habsburgs.)

Bernhardin Tiirck's second pamphlet,43 written in the spring of 1542, was addressed specifically to Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg, the supreme commander of the army then being assembled for the projected expedition to Hungary. The author discussed the strength and tactics of the Turkish army and gave advice on how to combat this adversary. Above all, he warned against meeting the Turks with too small a force, pointing to the Germans' experience in Hungary in 1541, when their contingents had been simply massacred by the enemy. He also stressed the importance of keeping the army in good health, and in this connection he made some touchingly naive suggestions. The German soldiers, he wrote, should be prevented from drinking too much of the fiery Hungarian wine, which causes diarrhea and encourages imprudent action on the battlefield. But he suggests that the mercenaries be liberally provided with beer transported down the Danube from Bavaria and Bohemia. A devout Lutheran Christian, Bernhardin Tiirck exhorts the Germans to pray for divine aid to their army and proposes the death penalty for blasphemous swearing on the part of the mercenary soldiers.

The remaining tracts of 1542 are not very original in content and can be summarized by simply translating their titles:

42 [B. Tiirck], Das der Tiirck ein erbfeind aller Christen weder traw noch glauben halte, klare beweysung . . . Unsere kriegsleut haben hierin wol zu bedencken, wie die Tiircken . . . mer ... tyrannisiren vber die, so sich jnen ergeben, dai wider die jnen widerstand thun. Darumb ist besser, dapffer wider sie kriegen, dai sich in ein vertrag begebe. 1542. For biographical data on this author, see F. Babinger, Zwei baierische Tiirken- biichlein (1542) und ihr Verfasser (Miinchen, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1959), pp. 6-8, 10-12, 17-22.

43 B. Tiirck, Getrewe vnd wolmeinende kurtze erjnnerung, von der Tiircken ordnung inn jren Kriegen vnnd Veldschlachten . . . M.D. XLII. This tract has been inaccessible to me. Its contents are summarized in Babinger, Zwei baierische Tiirkenbiich- lein, pp. 14-16 and in Kertbeny, pp. 139-140 (No. 573).

(a) A Short Christian Exhortation: How in These Dangerous Times One Should Turn to God and [Thus] Vanquish the Turk; Useful Reading for All Rulers and Soldiers. Anno XLI.44

(b) Exhortation to the Christian Common People to Pray for Grace and Victory over the Turk, and Willingly to Make Their Charitable Donation toward the Maintenance of the Christian Army. Anno 1542.45

It should be added that the old Project for a Crusade against the Turks, originally published in 1518, went through three fresh editions in 1541 and still another in 1542, with a picture of fully armed, drum-beating Landsknechte on the title page.46 The grandiose plan which envisaged the destruction of the Ottoman Empire had little relevance to the situation existing after the fall of Buda, when it was doubtful whether the Germans would even be able to oust the Turk from Hungary. But it may be that the general fear and uncertainty made the definite and optimistic ideas of the Project all the more appealing to the public.

It was apparently in 1543, after the failure of the German expedition to Hungary, that J6rg Brentel published A Poem of Comfort against the Turk.47 Very little is known about this author except that he was a German Protestant resident in Bohemia and that his verses have considerable literary merit. Addressing himself to the individual Christian, Brentel advises him not to worry about the fact that the Turk has not been defeated; he insists that the Turkish menace is not essentially a military problem but a divine visitation. He exhorts the Christian to turn from sin, live a pious life, and rely upon God for aid and comfort against the Turk.

In the foregoing review of source materials I have classified as Tiirkenbiichlein a number of pamphlets

44Ein kurtze Christliche Ermanung, wie man inn disen gefer- lichsten zeitten, sich zu Gott keren, vnd dem Tiircken obsigen moge, einem jeden Christlichen Regenten vnd Kriegsman niitzlich zulesen. Anno XLII.

45Ermanung an das Gemeyn Christenlich Volck, vmb Gnad vnd Siegk widder den Tiircken zu pitten, vnnd zu vnterhaltung des Christenlichen Heers jre milte handtreichung gutwillig zuthun.

46 Gbllner, Nos. 701-703 (1541); 762 (1542). All these editions bear the title Anschlag wider die grausamen vnd blutdiirstigen Tyrannei des Tiirgken. . . . For a reproduction of the title page of the 1542 edition, see below, p. 35.

47 Ain Trostspruch wider den Tiircken .... Although the author's name does not occur anywhere in the pamphlet, the initials "J. B." on the last page stand for "Jorg Brentel" in the judgment of most modern authorities. (See, for example, Gollner, No. 361 and the article on Brentel in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie.)

The first edition of the pamphlet bears no date of publication. According to both Gollner (No. 361) and Kertbeny (No. 363) it appeared in the early 1530's. I am more inclined to believe that this Poem of Consolation originated in 1542-1543, after the Germans' repeated failure to defeat the Turks in Hungary. There is, in fact, another edition that bears the date 1543 (Kertbeny, No. 364).

17 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


most of which have the word Tiirck in their titles and all of which, apparently, were written in response to Suleiman's imperialistic wars against his Christian neighbors. The majority of the pamphlets have the appearance of being essentially propaganda against the "enemy of the Christian faith and name." But actually none of the pamphlets deals exclusively with the Otto- mans or with the Turkish menace to Germany and Christendom, and in some tracts the Turk is not even the main theme. The authors regarded the Turkish peril as part of that general crisis of their age which is so well described in the quotation from Erasmus at the outset of this study. Nowhere in Europe was the turmoil of the period more intense than in the Ger- manies, which were the main center of the agonizing debate over the basic issues of the Christian faith and Church. In the minds of the authors the Turkish threat was less important than the internal problems of Christendom, though it, too, was an agonizing and at times crucial issue. The effect of the Moslem onslaught was to sharpen their awareness of the general religious and moral crisis of their time. No wonder, then, that most of the pamphlets are essentially theological or religious-moralistic tracts which deal with the Turkish menace as a religious rather than a political and military problem, although the secular aspects of the Turkish question also attracted the attention of some authors.

By and large, the authors were very much at home in the realm of religious and theological ideas. Not only were they living in an intensely religious age, but many of them were clergymen with a thorough theological training. After all, their ranks included Martin Luther and other learned theologians, both Protestant and Catholic. Even such laymen as Greff or Knaust had a more than adequate understanding of Christian theology. The authors' theological interpretations of the Turkish problem are often notable for their intellectual sophistication.

On the other hand, few if any of the pamphleteers had high-level experience in politics, public administration, or military affairs.48 Their remarks on such subjects as the Ottoman state and army or the practical aspects of warfare against the Turks are necessarily somewhat naive and amateurish. But if they did not speak as experts, they were nonetheless intelligent observers with a keen interest in public affairs; and it may be assumed that such persons, then as now, played an important part in the shaping of public opinion.

The basic assumptions of the authors were thoroughly medieval. They took for granted that Christianity was the one true religion, that the imperial and territorial governments of the Holy Roman Empire were of divine origin, that the Turkish menace and all other calamities were divine visitations, that the Moslem Turk was a

48 One author, Agricola, eventually did acquire such experience as mayor of Chemnitz in Saxony, but not until considerably after he had written his tract on the Turkish question. (Neue Deutsche Biographie 1, p. 99.)

threat not only to Germany's physical security but also to her Christian religion and way of life.

The authors' knowledge of the Ottoman Turks was limited and inaccurate. With the exception of Curi- peschitz, none of them had visited the Ottoman Empire, and even he based his statements more on anti-Moslem prejudice than on what incidental knowledge he may have acquired during his trip to Constantinople. There is little clear evidence on the sources of information used by the pamphleteers. It seems highly probable that most of them had access to two books on the Ottoman Empire that circulated in both Latin and German versions in this period: the memoirs of an anonymous Transylvanian who spent years as a slave of the Turks (and has become known as the Captivus Septemcastrensis)49; and the history and description of the Ottoman Empire by the Italian bishop, Paolo Giovio.50 Neither source was altogether adequate, and the former particularly contains serious errors. At any rate, the authors of Tiirkenbiichlein had little interest in accuracy; they were committed a priori to the belief that the Turk was an arch-enemy of Christendom, and they used any convenient "evidence" to prove their point. In fact, I have a strong suspicion that the pamphleteers tended to copy one another's errors of fact and judgment; the misinformation that appears in the Tiircken biechlin of 1522 and in the so-called Letter from a Resident of Turkey (1526) was repeated by the authors of later pamphlets (see the next chapter).

III. THE TURK AS ARCH-ENEMY OF CHRISTENDOM

In the vocabulary of the German authors the word Tiirck was virtually synonymous with "Mahometan" or "Moslem." After all, the particular Moslem enemy who threatened the security of Central Europe was the Ottoman Turk, not the Moor or the Persian. The very word Tiirck conjured up in German minds memories of the immemorial conflict between Christendom and Islam. The pamphleteers habitually called the Turk the "hereditary foe" (erbfeind)l of the Christian faith

49 Libellus de ritu et moribus Turcorum, translated into Ger- man by Sebastian Franck under the title Chronica vnd beschreibung der Tiirckey . . . (Niirnberg, Peypus, 1530). For the various Latin and German editions, see Gollner, Nos. 35, 48, 63, 362-369, 412.

50 p. Giovio, Commentario de le cose de' Turchi (Rome, 1531). For various editions in Italian, Latin, German, French, English, and Czech, see G6llner, Nos. 413, 433, 520, 595-598, 621-625, 644, 663-665, 686-688, 827, 828, 865. The first German edition appeared in 1537 under the title Vrsprung des Turkischen Reichs, bis auff den itzigen Solyman ... ; translated from the Latin by Justus Jonas, with a preface by Philip Melanchthon (G6llner, No. 598). There was another German edition in 1538 (G6llner, No. 625).

1 In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Germans used the word Erbfeind as a synonym for the Frenchman, the "hereditary foe" of the German nation or fatherland. The sixteenth-century pamphleteers, living long before the full de-


THE TURK AS ARCH-ENEMY OF CHRISTENDOM

and its adherents. This idea is graphically illustrated on the title page of the tract by Johann Haselberg, which shows a picture of Sultan Suleiman and Emperor Charles V, each at the head of his army, facing one another in readiness for mortal combat. Captions above the picture designate the Habsburg monarch as "Caro- lus, Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria, etc.-protector of Christendom" and the Ottoman ruler as "Sultan Suleiman, Turkish emperor-a hereditary enemy of the Christian faith." (See frontispiece.)

The authors were convinced that the Turk's ultimate aim was the destruction of Christendom. They pointed out that he had already subjugated many Christian kingdoms and principalities in the Balkans, that he was in the process of conquering Hungary, that he was threatening the security of the Holy Roman Empire. They had no doubt that Suleiman intended to add Ger- many to his dominions, an assumption that had little to do with the facts, as already noted.2 But the German pamphleteers could not have known that the Sultan had no territorial designs on Germany, and in any case they assumed that the chief of the infidels must have such designs since he was a "hereditary foe of all Christians."

This anti-Moslem prejudice determined their image of the Turk down to the last detail. In all the Turk's actions, in all his customs and institutions, they saw proof of a mortal hostility to the Christian faith and its adherents. (It is not the task of this monograph to ascertain to what extent their tendentious and often erroneous statements about the Turk corresponded to the Ottoman reality. In the following discussion of their views a corrective note will be added only when their distortion of reality is particularly glaring.)

1. THE TURK'S WAR PRACTICES AS EVIDENCE OF HIS ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHARACTER

The pamphlets are full of descriptions of the inhuman cruelty displayed by the Turk in his warfare against the Christians. With reference to Suleiman's 1529 campaign, for example, Georg Agricola writes:

I declare that we poor Germans have experienced-yea, experienced only too thoroughly--the outrageous cruelty and tyranny of the Turk. The Austrian countryside is covered far and wide with dead bodies, and the waters are red with blood; the fields are devastated, the villages and towns are burned; and our holy faith has been mocked and ridiculed.3

Heinrich Knaust wrote about a dozen years later (1542):

velopment of modern nationalism, tended to regard all Christian Europe as a unit. Often they spoke of the "Christian nation" or the "Christian fatherland," although occasionally they spoke of the "German nation" as one particular part of Christendom.

2 See above, p. 7. 3 Agricola, leaf b.

[In these perilous times] we face a terrible affliction in the Turk-who not only visits our frontiers with pillage and arson, but in unheard-of ways kills and massacres young and old, men and women, not sparing even the un- born infants in their mothers' wombs. He impales on fence posts, flays, burns, boils, hangs, and drowns the saints of God, shedding innocent blood without measure or restraint, and with complete impunity.4

According to Veit Dietrich, the Turk proves his insatiable lust for blood by habitually butchering "large masses" of Christian captives, including women and children.

Of such merciless, wild murdering there is no [previous] example in history, not even in that of the pagans, except for the doings of the Scythians and other barbarians at times when they were exceptionally angry. But the Turk does such things all the time, for no other reason than that the devil drives him against the Christians.5

While emphasizing Turkish violence, some authors add that the Turk also uses other methods to overcome his Christian antagonists: He negotiates solemn surrender terms, peace treaties, and alliances, only to break his promises as soon as it suits his purpose. The Ottoman government, writes one anonymous author, broadcasts rumors to the effect that Christians have everything to gain by placing themselves under the rule of the padishah. The Turk promises a just administration, religious toleration, and every other conceivable advantage. Some Christians have been credu- lous enough to take these blandishments at face value and have accepted Turkish rule. In such cases it is never very long before the Sultan begins to oppress his newly acquired subjects.6

Similarly, Bernhardin Tiirck argues that Suleiman has never kept faith with Christian antagonists or even with Christian allies. To support this contention he narrates various episodes from the Sultan's career, always putting the worst possible interpretation upon them. For example, he charges that in 1529 Suleiman promised to spare Ferdinand's garrison at Buda if they surrendered, only to massacre them to the last man as soon as they left the city. Even Suleiman's ally, Zapolya, was not safe from the Sultan's perfidy accord-

4 Knaust, leaves [A1]-A2. 5 Dietrich, Wie man das volck, d3-[d4]. As any student of

the sixteenth century knows, the Turks were scarcely more brutal than the Europeans themselves-witness, for example, the punishments inflicted on the rebellious German peasants (1525); the methods used in executing Anabaptists; the doings of the German and Spanish mercenaries of Charles V during the sack of Rome (1527). In 1529 the Christian mercenaries in Austria were not above robbing the local population whom they were "protecting" from the Turkish invaders. Fundamentally, the Turkish atrocities were unique only in so far as they occurred on a larger scale, since Suleiman's army was more numerous than the combined forces of Ferdinand and the German Estates. The enormous scale of Turkish brutality may have been one reason for the shocked attitude of the German authors. But acts of brutality always seem particularly shocking when inflicted by outsiders upon one's own kind.

6 Tiircken biechlin (1522), A3-B.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 19


ing to Bernhardin Turck. While Suleiman was retreating from Vienna, the pamphleteer alleges, the Turkish troops perpetrated a vast slave raid in Zapolya's territory. The Hungarian ruler remon- strated, but in vain; the Ottoman government replied that the slave raid was a necessary compensation for the reverse suffered at Vienna. The pamphleteer urges the Germans and other Christian nations to remember past instances of Turkish treachery and never to trust the Turk in the future. It is better, he maintains, to resist the Turk desperately than to enter into peace negotiations or alliances with an enemy who habitually breaks his promises to Christians.7

2. THE TURK AS A THREAT TO THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION

The pamphleteers' belief that the Turk was determined to extirpate the Christian religion was based on prejudice rather than fact; and even in the sixteenth century it was not universally held by the German people.

The comparatively large measure of religious toleration practiced by the Ottoman government was known to many Germans, and the Turkish policy naturally appealed to such suppressed religious groups as the Lutherans living under Catholic rulers and the Ana- baptists who were persecuted by Catholic and Lutheran alike. On the eve of Suleiman's Vienna campaign Luther complained:

. . I have heard that there are some in Germany who desire the advent of the Turk and wish to come under his regime; they would rather live under the Turk than under the Emperor and princes. With such people it will be hard indeed to fight the Turk! 8

These pro-Turkish sentiments among his own followers, Luther feared, were giving him and his movement a bad reputation. It was partly for these reasons that he wrote On War against the Turks, in which he expressed unqualified hostility to the infidel and sought to indoctrinate his followers. Apparently he was only partly successful, at least if we are to believe the testi- mony of Joachim Greff, who wrote in his Exhortation of 1541:

I have often heard many people say, "Ha-what do I care who conquers us-the devil, his mother, the Turk, or who- ever! It's all the same to me who is my ruler. After all, they say that [the Turkish emperor] allows people to have any religion they like, as long as they behave themselves. Anyone who obeys him is well off [under his rule]. If you ask me, it's far better to live under the Turk than under some Papist tyrant [who persecutes the Protestants with fire and sword]." 9

Such attitudes, of course, shocked the authors of the Tiirkenbiichlein. It was largely in order to refute the

7 B. Tiirck, Das der Tiirck, ein erbfeind, A2-[A4]. s Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: p. 137, lines 21-24. 9 Greff, C2.

arguments of the Turkophiles that they discussed, sometimes at considerable length, the condition of the Christian subjects of the Sultan. While they did not deny that toleration was the official policy of the Otto- man government, they contended that this policy was a sham. One of the earlier pamphlets, the spurious Letter from a Resident of Turkey (1526) put the matter as follows:

Our lord the Turkish emperor and his officials allow everyone to believe whatever he chooses, so long as he always keeps his opinions strictly to himself. [Christian] preaching and assemblies for divine service are not permitted. One must guard his tongue even in his own home, because the children grow up in the Turkish faith and all become Turks. A foreigner in Turkey is hated and shunned as soon as people find out that he is of the faith of Christ, not that of Mahomet. As a result, the Christian religion will eventually die out among young and old alike.10

Many later authors repeated the erroneous allegation that the Turks, by various pressures and inducements, were systematically Islamizing the entire Christian population. A particularly explicit and detailed statement of this view stems from the pen of Justus Jonas:

[In Greece and Asia Minor] there are few Christians left, and their number is daily decreasing. In some places the Turk has massacred all those who profess the name of Christ; in others he is destroying the Christian Church by other means. He will not permit the Gospel to be preached, nor will be permit the Christians to have schools, and without schools it is impossible to preach or maintain the World of God. A great many [Christians] fall away because they are tempted by the sight of the great success and [military] victories which the Turk has long enjoyed. Furthermore, there are few Christians who have a correct understanding of the Gospel; the majority believe that the service of God consists in outward works and ceremonial acts, not in that faith which expects and receives grace from God without merit [on the part of the individual]. Consequently there are many who fall away from Christ because of the glitter- ing [outward] works which they see the Turks perform, thinking that these people, with all their "good" works, must be pleasing to God.

Some ignorant persons say that the Turkish emperor allows freedom of conscience to everyone. But this is far from being the truth. Consider what the Turk does to all those [Christians] who come under his sway. He forcibly takes from [each set of] parents one-third of their children; then [the parents] must look on [helplessly] while their own dearest children are indoctrinated in the Mahometan errors and taught to become accustomed to Turkish ways.

Moreover, while it is true that there are Christians in Turkey, they may not criticize the law of Mahomet, and anyone who does so is put to death. Naturally those who do preach against it are very few, [and they can do little to strengthen the faith of the others], who in any case are weak Christians. [These latter] are impressed by the luxury, pomp, prestige, and wealth enjoyed by the Turks, while those who remain Christians are treated with contempt and trampled underfoot, like pitiful dogs. So, as human beings are wont to do, [the weaklings] take the path that leads to worldly success: they go along with the crowd, forsake Christ, and embrace the Turkish faith.-

10 Ausszug, a2-a3. 11 Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, E3-[E4]. Similar



In another passage Jonas discusses at length what he considers to be the seductive attractiveness of the false Mahometan religion:

The Koran contains nothing but unadulterated, shameless lies and horrible blasphemy; for therein Mahomet boasts of being a prophet sent by God to alter the teachings of the Gospel. He denies and negates the divinity of Christ, and rejects the true Christian teachings of grace, forgiveness of sins, and faith-which constitute the true and genuine service of God. But in order to give a semblance of truth to these diabolical lies, he accommodates his doctrines to human reason; for in many commandments he prescribes the performance of outward works and "divine services." Consequently many philosophers, writing in the Saracenic tongue, have praised these doctrines very highly. But then, all heresies contrary to Scripture have greatly appealed to human reason throughout the ages. These significant and terrible examples ought to warn us Christians not to rely too much on human reason. It is no coincidence that the [little] horn [in the seventh chapter of Daniel] has human eyes, which represent human intelligence and reason [see p. 23]. Reason is pleased by doctrines that it can comprehend, such as the advocacy of outward works-the belief that there is no other justification in the eyes of God than a respectable life (the avoidance of stealing, banditry, and murder of one's friends), along with the pursuit of a way, chosen by oneself, of honoring God and thereby earning great merit. Reason is impressed by such things, for it does not know that there is a higher piety in the eyes of God: reliance not upon [human] merit but upon [Christ's] true sufferings on the Cross. Reason is impressed only by outward behavior (sihet nach den wercken); it invents one ceremonial act (werck) after another and takes pride in these acts, as if God must have high regard for services that He never commanded. Among the Turks, therefore, all kinds of monkery have

arguments in Osiander, [A4]; Dietrich, Wie man das volck, d2; Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, B; Greff, C2-C3; Knaust, A2, F; Agricola, a3; Curipeschitz, A2-B2.

Modern scholars take a very different view of the status of Christianity and its adherents in the Ottoman Empire during the sixteenth century. They maintain that there was no official persecution of Christianity, no attempt to convert the Balkan population en masse to Islam, and comparatively little physical oppression of Christian subjects. The rule of the Ottoman sultans was considerably less oppressive than that of the Christian monarchs, princes, and nobles who had ruled the Balkans prior to the Turkish conquest. See L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453 (New York, Rinehart, 1958), chaps. 6, 7, and references there; H. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (London and New York, Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1950-1957) 1, Part II, chap. XIV (with copious bibliographical footnotes); Enclycopaedia of Islam, art. "Dhim- mis"; G. G. Arnakis, "The Greek Church of Constaninople and the Ottoman Empire," Jour. of Modern Hist. 24 (1952): pp. 235-250; the articles by F. Babinger in Vilker und Kulturen Siidosteuropas, ed. B. Saria (Miinchen, Siidosteuropa-Verlag- gesellschaft, 1959), pp. 199-217. According to Babinger (p. 202) the Christian peasant everywhere in the Balkans was allowed to remain on the land, while "the townsman could peace- fully pursue his business or craft. Above all, no one disturbed the priests in the performance of their ecclesiastical duties," although the Christians were not permitted to build new churches, repair existing ones, or use bells to summon the parishioners to divine service. These seem to have been the only official restrictions upon Christian worship. Thus the German pamphleteers were in error when they alleged that the Sultan's regime did not tolerate Christian preaching.

arisen. Some go about naked all winter; some have themselves burned with irons; some fast for days on end, believing that they thus earn much merit and pretending to converse with angels; some perform undeniably useful services, such as carrying well water through the streets of the large seaport cities, so that the inhabitants have something to drink; some provide hospitality for poor strangers, thus demonstrating their own holiness.

Among the Turkish emperors there was a certain Amurathes [Murad II], whose "holiness" was so great that he became a [Mahometan] monk. [This same emperor] had previously beaten the King of Hungary [Ulaszlo I] in the battle of Varna [1444] and had shed torrents of blood all over Asia [Minor] and Europe.

Such things are the purely human eyes of which Daniel speaks [Daniel 7: 8]. Human reason regards such works as highly praiseworthy, holy service to God; and those who do not correctly understand the Gospel's message of the grace of Christ, must necessarily be deceived by such false glitter. In the same way the new monks, the Anabaptists, are now deceiving the people, teaching that one should not wear berets but plain hats and gray coats, etc.

Most Christians in Turkey, Jonas concludes, are so impressed by the outwardly upright and charitable conduct of the Moslems that they forsake Christ and embrace the false teachings of Mahomet.12

No Turkish practice shocked the German authors more than did the devshirme, the custom of conscripting Balkan Christian boys to be reared as Moslems and trained for military, administrative, or domestic service with the Sultan. This alien custom struck the pamphleteers as unspeakably brutal, both because of the enforced separation of the boys from their parents and because the children would be forever lost to the Christian faith. Some authors greatly exaggerated the scope of the child-levy, erroneously alleging that every Christian family in Turkey was compelled to sacrifice one son out of three.13

Joachim Greff believed that the child-levy was a particularly strong argument against the attitudes of the Turkophiles in Germany. The Turk, he wrote, "takes the finest children, the intelligent and talented ones, and from an early age drums the Koran into their heads." In this way he leads them away from Christ to Mahomet, that is, straight into "the gaping mouth of the devil." Greff advises his readers diligently to teach the catechism to their children in case the Turk should invade and conquer Germany. It would be better for the child to die in a massacre and go to heaven than to become an infidel and "join the devil in hell." 14

2 Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, E2. Similar arguments in Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 186-192.

13 Ibid., [E4]-F. Jonas seems to have copied this error from an earlier pamphlet, the spurious Letter from a Resident of Turkey (Ausszug, a3-[a4]). For modern scholarly treatments of the devshirme, see Gibb and Bowen, pp. 18, 104, 168, 195, 210, 211, 223-224, 233 f.; Encyc. of Islam, art. "Dewshirme"; Stavri- anos, pp. 84-86.

14 Greff, C3. Similar ideas in Dietrich, Wie man das volck, c3, d2-d3, e2, g.

21 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


1onettrgn bortom, men / fentltchtbm lben / fikbmc tccm tbu/bee tiiUrcifden abgoteo m4omet8/li fei ner cbammlicbxn nb (Btfc ffcrlt n jetr /aUn fro,n?tm Cbtiffen)ubifm ncf crtldcn tftmIn/ turff

ctung vnb troff im glauben an 3fum Cbtitfum/ burctt 0. trinricum nuffitnum/ I3

fa,,tn,, gebra4}r.

Anno, N. P. XXXXI1. FIG. 2. Turkish Sultan and Christian slave. (Heinrich

Knaust's "biography" of Mahomet, 1542. Austrian National Library.)

The pamphleteers knew that the Turks made a regu- lar practice of enslaving soldiers and civilians captured in war. The treatment given to such captives naturally interested the German authors, particularly those of them who wrote their pamphlets when actual hostilities between the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires were in progress. These authors feared the possibility that they themselves or their fellow Germans might be re- duced to Turkish servitude.

Their picture of the condition of Christian captives in Turkey is uniformly dark: The Turk drives his slaves to market "like livestock" (wie dz vich), merci- lessly separating husband from wife, parent from child, friend from friend. Many of the captives are forced to serve on galleys, where they are "treated worse than dogs and cats." Above all, the Moslem masters leave no stone unturned in their effort to convert the slaves to the false and diabolical doctrines of Mahomet.15

15 Osiander, A2-A3; Agricola, c3-c4; Dietrich, Wie man das volck, c2, h3-h4. "But it is not necessary," Dietrich adds, "to write at length about such misery," since Germany is now "full"

The spiritual welfare of persons in danger of capture by the Turk was a matter of grave concern to Martin Luther. In a long passage of his Militant Sermon against the Turk (1529) he addressed himself specifically to such persons.16 It is the duty of a slave, Luther argues, to obey his master in all worldly things; but at the same time a Christian slave must resist all pressure and temptation to embrace Islam, remembering always that there is no salvation without faith in Christ.

In his Exhortation of 1541 Luther again advised his followers on how to conduct themselves in case of enslavement by the infidel. Among other things he asserted that Christian wives, forcibly separated from their husbands, should obediently share the beds of their Turkish masters if required to do so. They "should submit in patience, suffering such a thing for the sake of Christ, without despairing as if they were damned. The soul cannot help what the enemy does to the body." But let the soul itself remain faithful to Christ! Like his disciple Greff, Luther advised Christian parents thoroughly to teach the catechism to their children, so that the latter might know something of the faith and remain steadfast if the Turk should capture and attempt to Islamize them. Luther even expressed the hope that such children might convert their captors to Christianity.7

Luther's various tracts "against the Turk" inspired one of his adherents, Heinrich Knaust, to write a biography of "the Turkish idol Mahomet" for the edification of Protestant soldiers. Knaust stated the purpose of his tract as follows:

It is possible that during the present campaign [of 1542] some of our men may be captured and transported to Turkey. For their benefit I have compiled this booklet, so that they may not be led astray by the false glitter of the Turkish religion and forsake the Christian faith.18

The argument of Knaust's somewhat lengthy pamphlet is essentially simple. Mahomet, he contends, was an impostor inspired by Satan to found a cult capable of challenging and eventually destroying Christianity. Already the Mahometans have been appallingly successful in decimating the ranks of the Christians by massacre on the one hand, conversion on the other. The Ger- man soldier, if captured by the Turk and tempted to apostatize, should strengthen his faith by recalling the diabolical origin of Islam.

of people who, after years of servitude in Turkey, escaped and made their way back to the fatherland. Thus Dietrich implies that the "misery" is a matter of common knowledge. See also the two songs concerning the sufferings of the "poor captive Christians at Constantinople" in Hie nach volgend Vier neuwe . . . Lieder, wider den . . . Tiirgken (Augsburg, H. Stayner, 1542), [A4]-B3. In reality the treatment of slaves in Turkey and other Moslem countries was by no means always harsh. See Encyc. of Islam, new ed., 1 (1960), art. "Abd," esp. pp. 31-36.

16 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 185-197. 17 Ibid. 51: pp. 621-622. 18 Knaust, [A4].



3. THE TURK IN LUTHERAN ESCHATOLOGY

Eschatological ideas play a major role in the Protestant Tiirkenbiichlein. Luther and his followers believed that Christ's Second Coming and the end of the world were approaching, and that therefore the perennial struggle between God and Satan has reached its final, climactic stage. In this view the devil, know- ing that the Last Judgment was about to spell his doom, was grimly redoubling his efforts to destroy the Christian Church in what little time he had left. Man- kind, therefore, was more sharply divided than ever into those who abetted the devil's cause and those who stood firmly on the side of God. The former were by far the more numerous; they included the Papists, the Moslem infidels, and all other believers in false doctrines. The few genuine Christians-"God's little handful" of "saints"-were more or less identical with those Lutherans who took the Gospel seriously. As they were the one remaining obstacle in Satan's path, he was unleashing all his fury against them, attacking them with "the power of the Turk on the one hand, that of the Pope and his following on the other." Assaulted and persecuted by powerful adversaries, the saints survived only because Christ would not allow His Church to perish. They were suffering grievously, but this was only to be expected-had not Christ Himself foretold that the world's last days would be a time of tribulation? And yet the saints should take heart, for Christ had also foretold that the tribulation would be cut short by His Second Coming (Matthew 24: 3-31). Then the saints would be glorified, while the Pope and the Turk would suffer terrible retribution in the Last Judgment.

Luther, Jonas, and others agreed that the Prophet Daniel had clearly foreseen the nature, rise, and fall of the Turkish Empire (Daniel 7: 2-28). Their closely similar interpretations of Daniel's vision of the four beasts may be summarized as follows:

The first three beasts represented the once powerful empires of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Medes and Persians, and the Hellenistic world of Alexander the Great and his heirs. The fourth and mightiest beast symbolized the Roman Empire and its successor, the Germanic Holy Roman Empire. Daniel's vision proved that this "Roman Empire" would not perish until the end of the world. The beast's ten horns were the provinces, later independent kingdoms, that had once belonged to the ancient Roman Empire. The little horn that Daniel had seen growing out of the beast's head meant the Turkish Empire, which had uprooted or conquered the three original horns of "Egypt, Greece, and Asia." The small horn's blasphemous mouth and human eyes stood for Mahomet and the Koran-a book that contained not divinely revealed truth but errors invented by human reason.19

19 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 162-171; Buchanan, "Luther and the Turks," Archiv fur Reformations-

m

FIG. 3. Daniel's vision of the four beasts. (Justus Jonas, The Seventh Chapter of Daniel [Wittenberg, ca. 1530]. Austrian National Library.)

Daniel's vision assured the theologians that the Turkish threat to the Holy Roman Empire was not overwhelming. Although the Turk might still do much

damage, he would not succeed in making any further

permanent conquests in Christian and formerly Roman

territory. Daniel allowed him three horns but no more. The Turk might temporarily conquer Hungary and invade Germany, but he would never enjoy undisturbed

possession of these countries. He would always meet determined military resistance from the Christians, as Daniel had prophesied that there would be wars between the saints and the little horn until the end of time. In the near future the Last Judgment would cut short the Turk's bloody career. Had not Daniel seen the horn

destroyed while dominion was given to the saints of the Most High? 20

The interpretations summarized above were written, for the most part, shortly after Suleiman's reverse at Vienna, when it was easy to hope that the Turk would never win a decisive victory over the Germans. After Suleiman gained a firm foothold in Hungary (1541), Luther and others were no longer so confident about the impossibility of a Turkish conquest of Germany. But they saw no reason to abandon their earlier inter-

pretation of Daniel, as they could always take refuge in the belief that any conquests the Turk might make would be only temporary. They remained convinced that the Last Judgment was near at hand, a view that involved no inconsistency because they had never at-

geschichte 47, Part II (1956): pp. 155-159; Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, B3-D; Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, A2, B2, B3 (see translation in the appendix, pp. 46-48).

20 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 171-172; Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, H2-H3; Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, B3-[B4].

=< Wa --

,S,?D~

9

-S- S t

r *- -r - e I s

IZ _

I

I - I

23 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 19681


tempted to determine the exact date of the Second

Coming.21 If the Lutheran authors hated the Turk, they were

at least equally hostile to "the Pope"-the Papacy as an anti-Christian institution. Luther vividly portrayed the two chief "enemies of Christ" in On War against the Turks:

The Pope, along with his following, is not content with fighting, murdering, and robbing his [armed] antagonists: he also burns, anathematizes, and persecutes the innocent [non-violent], pious, and orthodox Christians. He is the real Antichrist, for he does these things while sitting in the temple of God as head of the Church, which the Turk does not do. But if the Pope is Antichrist, the Turk is the devil incarnate. It is against both that our prayers, and those of Christendom, must be directed. [Let us pray] that both may soon descend to hell-that the Judgment Day may speedily arrive. But I hope that it is, in any case, not far away.22

Thus Luther ended by stressing the similarity, not the difference, between Pope and Turk. Both, he insisted, were seeking to extirpate the Christian faith and Church by physical violence as well as by false doctrine.

The idea of a close kinship between Pope and Turk became deeply engrained in the Lutheran community as a whole, for it was propagated not only through Tiirkenbiichlein 23 but also through hymns, oral sermons, and catechetical instruction. It received its most classic expression in the hymn written by Luther for the indoctrination of Protestant children:

21 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 51: p. 614; Dietrich, Wie man das volck, h2; Knaust, A3-[A4].

22 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 125-126. Luther was not very consistent in his utterances on the Turk's relation to Antichrist. "In the Table Talk Luther is quoted as saying: 'Antichrist is at the same time the pope and the Turk. A living creature consists of body and soul. The spirit of Antichrist is the pope, his flesh the Turk. One attacks the Church physically, the other spiritually. Both however are of one lord, the devil, since the pope is a liar and the Turk a murderer. But make a single person of Antichrist and you'll find both liar and murderer in the pope.'" (K. M. Setton, "Lutheranism and the Turkish Peril," Balkan Studies 3 [1962]: p. 151, quoting from Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., Tischreden 3 [1914]: pp. 158, 159.) H. Lamparter, Luthers Stellung zum Tiirkenkrieg (Tiibingen, 1940), pp. 40 ff. also holds that Luther regarded both Pope and Turk as Antichrist. Actually it would seem that Luther, despite occasional doubts, always returned sooner or later to the belief that the designation "Antichrist" properly belonged to the Pope alone. This thesis is convincingly advanced by H. Preuss in Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spiteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1906), pp. 171-175. On this point there was some difference of opinion between Luther and such other Protestant theologians as Melanchthon, Jonas, and Bugenhagen. In their view, the Antichrist was a dual monster consisting of "Pope and Turk" or "Pope and Mahomet." See Preuss, p. 204; Jonas, preface to Ein kleglich ansuchen, A2.

23 See, for example, Heyden, title page; Dietrich, Wie man das volck, h2; Jonas, preface to Ein kleglich ansuchen, A2; and his Das siebend Capitel Danielis, B1.

Erhalt vns, HErr, bey deinem Wort vnd steur des Bapsts vnd Turcken Mord, die Jhesum Christum deinen Son woll- ten stiirtzen von deinem Thron .. .24 ("Keep us true to thy Word, O Lord, and preserve us from murder by the Pope and the Turk, who would topple Jesus Christ, thy Son, from thy throne.")

In a Lutheran hymnal of 1543 this song appears under the heading "A Children's Song, To Be Sung against the Two Arch-Enemies of Christ and His Holy Church, the Pope and the Turk." 25

It would be strange if the Catholic Tiirkenbiichlein did not contain similar polemics against Luther and his followers. In fact, an anonymous pamphleteer charges that Luther is very much like the Turk, except that he is even more pernicious. "The Turk tears down churches and destroys monasteries-so does Luther. The Turk turns convents into horse-stables and makes cannon out of church bells-so does Luther." The Turk forbids Christian preaching; Luther does worse: he encourages preaching but "destroys and abolishes all moral discipline, the ceremonies of divine service, and the office of the Holy Mass." Luther's kind of

preaching leads men to error and therefore is far more

dangerous than the silence enforced by the Sultan's

regime. The Turk "abuses and treats lasciviously all female persons, both secular and spiritual"; Luther entices nuns and monks out of their monasteries and

enjoins them to contract false, impious marriages. The Turk practices polygamy, allowing a merchant to have wives in every town in which he does business; Luther, too, does not believe in the sanctity of marriage: he tolerates infidelity, holding that chastity is humanly impossible.26

The pamphleteer affirms that Luther is in truth the Antichrist:

We have many prognostications, prophecies, and warn- ings about the things that are happening in our time, particularly from the saintly father, Vincent of Brittany, who died approximately one hundred-eight years ago. This Vincent clearly foretold the advent of an Antichrist who, he said, would be a confused [but] learned man, would lead many [other] learned men astray, would have a following among the German princes, would strike down and abolish the office of the Holy Mass. All this we now see fulfilled in Luther.27

24 Quoted in P. Wackeragel, Bibliographie zur Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes im XVI. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt a. M., Heyder & Zimmer, 1855), p. 26, No. 44.

25 Ibid. Cf. A. F. W. Fischer, Kirchenlieder-Lexicon (Gotha, Perthes, 1878), p. 167. The hymn continued to be included, with the text unchanged, in Lutheran hymnals for literally centuries after the Turk had ceased to be a threat to Central Europe. Thus it appears as hymn No. 583 in the Pomeranian Gesangbuch of 1866 (Alt-Stettin, F. Hessenland). In the Evangelisches Gesangbuch fur Brandenburg und Pommern (Berlin, Trowitzsch, 1931), No. 91, the words "des Papsts und Tiirken Mord" have been changed to "deiner Feinde Mord."

26 Ein Sendbrieff, C2-C3. 27 Ibid., A3-[A4]. Since this pamphlet was written in 1526

and published in 1527, the reference is undoubtedly to the Spaniard, St. Vincent Ferrer, who spent the last months of his


THE TURKISH PERIL AS A SCOURGE OF GOD

In general, however, the Catholic Tiirkenbiichlein do not discuss such subjects as the Antichrist, the devil, and the end of the world. The explanation is, presumably, that eschatology was suspect in the eyes of most Catholics, since it was closely associated with the Lutherans and their theological precursors, the sectaries of the later Middle Ages.28

IV. THE TURKISH PERIL AS A SCOURGE OF GOD

The Tiirkenbiichlein leave no doubt that contemporaries regarded the Turkish menace as part of the great moral and spiritual crisis confronting the Christian Church. The existence of an acute external threat intensified the already profound feeling of the sinful- ness of man that characterized the age and was epito- mized by the soul-searching and spiritual struggles of Martin Luther. This intensely religious mood pervades the pages of the Tiirkenbiichlein, whose authors were convinced that the Turkish peril was a visitation inflicted by God upon a sinful Christendom. Almost every pamphlet discusses the sins of the Christians, especially the Germans, sometimes in general terms and sometimes in specific detail. Most authors treat the subject within the context of the great issues of the Reformation. Catholic writers attribute the Turkish menace in large measure to the doctrinal errors and general iniquity of the Lutheran heretics; their Prot- estant counterparts reply that there is no worse sin than the false doctrines of the "Papists." At the same time, both Catholic and Protestant writers inveigh against the shortcomings of their own religious camp, maintaining that its sins, too, are among the major causes of the Turkish visitation.

1. THE SINS OF THE CHRISTIANS AS CAUSES OF THE TURKISH PERIL

The belief that the Turk was a scourge of God found particularly striking expression in the tract written by the Lutheran theologian, Andreas Osiander, in 1542, a few months after Suleiman's definitive conquest of Hungary. Osiander argued that only the hand of God could explain the Turk's remarkable military victories as well as his success in spreading Islam. God must be angry with the Christians; otherwise they would not have been so consistently ineffective in all their endeavors to combat either the military or the religious aggression of the infidel:

For a long time we [Christians] have attempted to check this raging tyrant by a variety of ways and means-by word, deed, and force of arms. But unfortunately-to tell

life in Brittany and died there in 1419, "approximately one hundred-eight years ago." (Enciclopedia universal ilustrada 68 [1929], art. "Vicente Ferrer [San]," p. 537.)

28 R. H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston, Beacon Press, 1956), pp. 19, 44.

the truth-we have never yet succeeded in winning a decisive victory, or even in effectively opposing [his continued territorial expansion]. Still less has there been a reconquest of the lands and peoples that he has wrested from Christendom and forced to submit to the diabolical infidelity of the desperate [enemy of Christ], Mahomet; nor has there been a revival of the old, true Christian faith which once flourished in those parts.

Undoubtedly the Turk does not owe his steady victories and remarkable success to any great wisdom on his part- how can he have any notable wisdom, he who is without the Word of God, who believes and teaches completely erroneous, seductive, diabolical lies? Nor does he owe his victories to the great might, strength, and mass of his army, for they [the Turks] are effeminate men. In any case, it would be neither new nor strange for a smaller army to defeat a larger one, since God Himself, when gracious, fights for those who believe in Him. This He did against Pharaoh in the Red Sea [Exodus 14: 21-30], and against the Assyrian Emperor Sennacherib at Jeru- salem [II Kings 19: 32-36], and on other occasions re- corded in the Old and New Testaments. Rather, it is the ardent wrath and fury of God, provoked by our grievous, horrible, protracted sins and unrepentant lives, that now strikes us and oppresses us in these last, perilous times. In His divine majesty He is inflicting the power of the Turk upon us, giving him so much success and victory against us that neither our prayers in heaven nor our armies on earth have been able to achieve anything considerable against him.1

If the sins of the Christians were "ordinary and small ones, no matter how numerous," God would have used some milder scourge to punish and correct his way- ward children. The infidel is a particularly severe scourge because he threatens not only the physical well-being but the very souls of the Christians. "In all places where the Turk has gained the upper hand" (meaning, presumably, Asia Minor and the Balkans) he is gradually extirpating Christianity and establishing the "blasphemous, diabolical lies of the desperate Mahomet." God would never have permitted this to happen unless a large portion of the inhabitants of those places had long been "false Christians" who had expelled Christ from their midst by living "pagan lives" and adhering to false doctrines. God is now causing the Turk to strip them of that Christian name which heretofore they have unworthily retained; much as a German territorial government deprives a captured robber baron of sword, spurs, and other insignia of that noble rank of which he has proved himself unworthy.

Conversion to Islam is a road of no return. Once de- prived of the Gospel and the spiritual guidance it provides, men cannot possibly turn from sin and reconcile themselves with God. Islamization, therefore, leads to the ultimate punishment of eternal damnation. The fate of the apostates, Osiander implies, is a terrible warning to the Germans and other Christians who are still free of the Turkish yoke, but who are fully as deserving of punishment because they, too, are committing the most heinous sins. Unless they repent, God will permit the Turk to enslave them and turn them into infidels.

1 Osiander, A3.

25 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


The sins that have made God so angry with us are, in brief, the following: Contempt for, falsification of, and persecution of His holy, divine Word; abuse of His holy sacraments; false doctrines, invented by human beings, in divine matters of faith; enforcement of these doctrines at the point of the sword, shedding innocent blood; idolatry, heresy, simony, black magic; and the pagan, Epicurean life of those who care not for God, do not go to hear sermons, and in some cases know neither the paternoster nor the Creed nor the Ten Commandments, and have no desire to learn them. In addition, there is a horrible deluge of all kinds of abominable vices which are practiced, contrary to all divine commandments, not because of human weakness and stupidity, but because people are unrepentantly hard- ened in their ways. Indeed, a large portion of humanity no longer regards these vices as disgraceful sins, but un- ashamedly praises them as if they were the purest virtues. Furthermore, these vices are not severely punished, as they ought to be, by either the secular or the spiritual authorities -by either civil penalties or the ban of excommunication. [These vices include] drunkenness and gluttony; cursing, angry words, and [blasphemous] swearing; licentious, scandalous, offensive words, gestures, and clothes; whoring, adultery, and ravishing of virgins; silent sins, especially among those who, feigning chastity, eschew the matrimonial estate; lying, slander, defamation, and treachery; avarice, robbery, stealing, cheating, deceit, and usury.2

This was the usual Protestant view of the sins of Christendom, which stressed, on the one hand, a list of vices more or less identical with the seven deadly sins, and on the other, "false doctrines invented by human beings," that is, the teachings of the Catholic Church. Similar statements occur in virtually every Lutheran Tiirkenbiichlein. Aside from its distinctively Prot- estant features, however, Osiander's view was shared by the Catholic writers also. Thus the priest Wolfgang Kanzler wrote in the early 1530's, when a second Turk- ish attack on the Empire was generally expected:

It is no wonder, dear friends, that the Turk presumes so strongly and terribly to overrun Christendom, to persecute and extirpate [the faithful]; or that the violence of his attacks is constantly increasing. There is no need for long inquiries, miraculous insights, magic spells, elaborate calculations, or running back and forth [to explain] where this affliction comes from or why it continues without ceasing. Let us look at ourselves, let us probe and search our hearts and conduct-the kind of life we are leading, with lies and deceit, with absolutely no fear of God, with no love of God or fellow man. If we thought about this, we should undoubtedly become acutely aware of the huge, excessive, abominable sins and vices in which we are drowning; yea into which we have sunk as low as hell itself; and out of which we cannot emerge without the grace and aid of God. Let us look at the great impiety that has struck root everywhere and has taken possession of old and young people alike. Behold the enormous whoring, the shameful drinking bouts, the innumerable curses and oaths, the constant lies and deceit. No longer can one find love or fear of God among men, let alone that love of God through fellow man which we ought to practice toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood and in obedience to the divine Father. It is clear as day that our sin, blindness, and baseness are so large that we can grasp them with our hands, not to mention the fact that we can see them well

2 Ibid., [A4]-B.

enough with our eyes. And yet we refuse to reform! I am often reminded of the words spoken by God Himself through the Prophet Hosea in the fourth chapter [Hosea 4: 1]: " . . . there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land."

Now, the Turk alone [not to mention the many other divine visitations now afflicting us] has made it unmistak- ably clear that God has warned and admonished us, exhort- ing us to reform and desist from sin. Did we not see, in the year 1529, how horribly and mightily the Turk ravaged all Austria; how frightfully he besieged the city of Vienna; how pitifully he shed the blood of the Christians; how he enslaved and violated (in every possible way) the pitiable people, men and women, boys and virgin girls-all those who were unable to escape him and had not already been killed by his bloodthirsty hand?

All this we should take to heart, if there is so much as a spark of love and fear of God in us. Let us consider that God has admonished us, that he has shown us His rod: [It is] as if He had personally spoken to [each of] us, saying: "Look, my son, this is my scourge, the Turk; I am using him as my rod; I am allowing him to attack you, to chastise you. But if you desist from sin, amend your life, turn to me, and ask me alone for grace and aid, then I likewise will turn to you and hear your prayer; I will help you and deliver you from the Turk." [But if the Christians will not repent and turn to God, then He will say]: "I will turn from them also, and vent my wrath on them, forcing them to see that I the Lord their God still live, that it is still within my power to punish sin. Even before this day ends I will visit their misdoings, and [I will punish] their children also, down to the third and fourth generation." 3

2. THE "SINS OF ALL ESTATES"

Moralists have always taken a pessimistic view of their own society, and the writers of Tiirkenbiichlein were no exception. Some authors complained that all estates in Christendom were shamefully disregarding their di-

vinely imposed duties to society. A particularly good example of such general criticism is provided by the

anonymous Advice and Exhortation of 1536. The author charges that there is no brotherly love among the Christians; everyone selfishly pursues his own interests; "no good deeds are done, and yet we call ourselves Christians." The priests "live carnally" and fail to

give a shining example to the laity, and yet they call

3 Kanzler, A2-A3. If we are to believe Kanzler, the Germans were heavy drinkers: "Enormous drinking bouts have become overwhelmingly prevalent among us Germans; they have taken possession of everyone, young and old alike. People applaud a man who can consume enormous quantities and win drinking contests. ... Go anywhere in Germany, and you will see men drinking away as if their lives depended upon it. In some localities they will work only half the week and devote the other half to the wine-cup. No wonder people are poor and have nothing to eat in their homes .... Moreover, only tavern wine appeals to them; they prefer to spend two Pfennig extra in order to drink in the tavern with their fellows, instead of drinking at home with wife and child-a much more honorable thing to do.... "(Kanzler, B2)

Similarly, the author of the Tiircken biechlin (1522) writes (B3) that the Germans, especially their soldiery, are "too much addicted to gluttony and drunkenness-more so than any other nation."



themselves the spiritual estate. But "the new men, the Evangelical gang (rott)" are no better; "they consider themselves pure, as if they kept God's commandments; but one can see every day how well they keep them: they are divided into many sects; they are full of hatred and envy"; their gluttony and drunkenness are the best indication of the nature of their so-called piety. No group in society has the slightest concern for the general welfare. The Emperor and the other monarchs of Europe constantly wage fratricidal wars, instead of living at peace with one another, as Christian rulers should, and promoting law and order in their own territories, in accordance with the divinely appointed function of their estate. The princes and nobles live in pomp and luxury, largely by squeezing contributions out of the poor peasants. But "truth to tell, the peasants deserve to be thus oppressed by the nobility," for they do not rue their contumacious rebellion of 1524-1525 (Bei jn ist auch kein trewe, sie willens haben rum Ir schalckeit nit berewen), and still less are they inclined to live piously. Fully as iniquitous are the artisans, who are ruining one another by trick- ery, cheating, and unfair competition. No better are the merchants, most of whom are growing rich by usury; but instead of condemning this wicked practice, the world admires them as shrewd businessmen. Im- piously forgetting their place in the social order, the rich merchants are "becoming veritable princes"- but God will know how to punish their presumption and "take vengeance upon their splendor." With their greed and avarice the merchants are "sucking all countries dry" and robbing all other groups in society. Thus they are ruthlessly driving the artisans and small shopkeepers out of business. "In the old days it was customary" that every burgher "had his own trade and was content with it, but now there is nothing but ruin. Where formerly a [particular] trade decently supported twenty persons, today two persons have it all." This condition can only "damage and destroy the general welfare."

"None of the estates," the author concludes, "is properly fulfilling its functions or living up to its own rules of conduct. Try as one may, one cannot find a single [estate] that is any good." 4

This "annotated list" conveys an adequate impression of what the pamphleteers meant by the "sins of all estates." Some authors add vivid and pungent details concerning the shortcomings of particular groups in Christian society. Ivo Semerin, for example, accuses the monarchs and princes of Germany and Christendom of having sorely neglected the divinely imposed re- sponsibilities of their high estate:

[God] has specifically and directly entrusted the defense and protection of Christendom to its supreme ruler, our lord the Emperor, and to its other kings, princes, and

4 Rathschlag vnd vermanung, first two leaves (unsigned) after title page.

governors. But most of them are devoting very little care, diligence, and foresight to the fulfillment of their appointed task [even though the Turk is sorely afflicting Christendom and threatening it with ultimate extinction]. They pay no heed to the screams, wails, sighs, tears, laments, poverty, misery, destruction, hunger, nakedness, and ultimate despair of the poor Christian men who are daily enslaved, robbed, and massacred; nor to [the sufferings of] the wives and children of these men; nor even to the threatened destruction of the Christian Church and the [Holy] Roman Em- pire. All this leaves them unconcerned and unmoved; at their courts and residences they indulge in all kinds of sensuality, pomp, and arrogant ostentation, with wedding feasts, dances, sleighing parties, jousts, tournaments, ban- quets, drunkenness, and gluttony. Moreover, the policies devised in their council-chambers, instead of strengthening Christendom, are more likely to bring about its downfall. For example, they oppress their subjects with excessive taxes and other burdens in no way tempered by brotherly love. Thus they live foolishly and impiously, as if the Turk had never existed, or at least never expanded beyond Asia Minor-as if our security were bound to last forever. Needless to say, the Lord God forbids them, as Christian rulers, to maltreat their people in this manner. [Therefore let them consider the divine warning], or else God will judge and punish them, and condemn their souls to eternal damnation.5

Similarly, Benedict Curipeschitz accuses Charles V and his predecessors on the imperial throne of having long neglected their special duty of acting as champions of Christendom against the infidel. For four hundred years, he charges, the emperors have preferred to wage bloody wars against other European rulers, thus killing more Christians than the Turk himself has done. The author bitterly criticizes Charles V for having permitted the Sultan to seize the finest bulwarks of Christendom: Belgrade, Rhodes, and Hungary.6

Another writer, Joachim Greff, accuses the German princes and their military commanders of "tempting God" by failing to do their part in the defense of the Empire against Turkish attacks. At the imperial diets, he declares, much time is wasted in endless haggling over "how much money and how many men" are necessary for any particular military campaign. The funds expended in these negotiations exceed the sum re- quested for military purposes by the imperial government. By the time the contingents of the various rulers are finally equipped and ready to go to war, the best chance of victory is "already lost." The contingents are badly coordinated; they arrive separately and at different times on the scene of battle, so that the enemy can cut them to pieces one by one. On that rare occasion when the Germans assemble a strong army (meaning, presumably, the campaign of 1532), the Turks simply flee, and then the Germans are "such fools" as not to engage in hot pursuit. Everyone is far too eager to return home, where "good wine and gluttonous re- pasts" await him. Then the soldiers and their em-

5 Semerin, B. 6 Curipeschitz, D. Similar arguments in Ein hiibsch new

Lied vnd Ermanung . . . (n. p., n. n., 1530), a2-a3.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 27


ployers, the princes, are glad to be rid of the enemy "until he invades us again." Eventually the Turk may overrun all Germany, but none of the princes will admit that this is a possibility. They like to point out that there is a long road between Turkey and Germany, for they much prefer to spend their time feasting on flat cakes instead of worrying about the Turkish danger.7

No better than the kings and princes, according to some writers, are the nobles, particularly those of Ger- many. The anonymous author of the Tiircken biechlin (1522) bitterly laments the decline of chivalry, accusing the nobles not only of disregarding the duties of their estate, but of having become a menace to society. In- stead of defending Christendom against the Turk, he charges, they prefer to stay at home, for they have become lazy and idle. Instead of protecting society against criminals, the knights and barons themselves engage in brigandage. Furthermore, some of them secretly invest money in business, a practice wholly incompatible with the divinely ordained role of their estate (wider ordnung ires stands).8

Similarly, Benedict Curipeschitz charges that the nobles have become useless parasites upon the body social and politic. They are too busy pursuing frivolous amusements, he writes, to take any interest in the defense of their subjects and of Christendom against the attacks of the infidel. While neglecting their military training, he says sarcastically, they excel in gluttony, drunkeness, illicit love affairs, and arrogantly pompous apparel.9

Equally as wicked as the rulers and nobles, according to Curipeschitz, are their mercenary soldiers. The sins of the Landsknechte, he asserts, are among the main causes of the Christians' failure to defeat the Turk. The mercenaries, he says in bitter jest, are so full of brotherly love that it is easier to recruit three men to fight Christians in Italy than to raise one for battle against the Turk. As the soldiers do not relish warfare against this adversary, they invariably demand extra pay before consenting to take part in a Turkish campaign.10

Curipeschitz is not the only writer whose statements reflect the unenviable reputation of the mercenary soldiers among the German people. Some authors express the fear that it will be difficult to defeat the Turk because the Christian soldiers are among the worst sinners, constantly offending God with drunkenness, fornication, looting, gambling, and above all, blasphemous oaths. Is it likely, the pamphleteers ask, that God will grant victory to armies composed of such iniquitous men?1l

As already indicated, the merchants fare no better in the Tiirkenbiichlein than do the princes, nobles, and

7 Greff, B2-B3. 8 Tiircken biechlin (1522), B3, D3. 9 Curipeschitz, D2. 10 Ibid., D3. 11 Kretz, A2; B. Tiirck, Das der Tiirck, ein erbfeind, B-B2.

mercenaries. Curipeschitz, for example, accuses the wealthy and arrogant merchants of impiously "elevating themselves above the lords and the noble estate," outdoing the gentlemen in costly attire, luxurious living, and aristocratic ways in general.12

The anonymous author of the Tiircken biechlin (1522) also levels scathing criticisms against this group. With their usury, he says, the big merchants have done more harm to Christendom than all the Jews and highwaymen put together. Their monopolies, established in violation of both canon and secular law, have led to the utter impoverishment of the common people. In their ruthless pursuit of filthy lucre they do not shrink even from trading with the infidel; they provide the Sultan with copper, iron, saltpeter, and military armor. All plans to curb their abuses have failed because of the tremendous influence which, by foul means, they have acquired at the various royal courts. They never hesitate to bribe important persons, enter into business partnerships with them, or marry off their daughters to them with enormous dowries.13

The sins of the peasants are discussed in detail by Wolfgang Kanzler, who seems to have been a parish priest in some village or country town. He accuses the peasants of avarice and greed. They will not sell oats, firewood, chickens, eggs, or anything else except at exorbitant prices; their sole aim is to fleece the con- sumer. (The author-priest may have found it difficult to make ends meet because of the general price inflation that was taking place; perhaps it was only natural for him to attribute his own sufferings to the avarice of the peasants from whom he bought his daily house- hold supplies.) Be that as it may, he was sincerely convinced that the peasants were completely lacking in public spirit. He accuses them of being shameless war profiteers, asserting that "a few imperial diets ago" (during the Turkish war of 1529?) they greedily filled their purses at the expense of the political authorities by charging the most outrageous prices for foodstuffs and fodder.14

3. THE TURKISH VISITATION AND THE SCHISM IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

In the minds of the pamphleteers the Turkish visitation was intimately related to the conflict of creeds in the Christian Church. Catholic and Protestant writers alike believed that the Christians had provoked the wrath of God by corrupting the teachings of the faith, and that false doctrines were among the most important causes of the Turkish scourge.

For example, an anonymous Catholic author, writing shortly after the battle of Mohacs, interpreted the Turk- ish threat to the Holy Roman Empire as a sign that the Germans had angered God by adhering in large

12 Curipeschitz, D2. 13 Tiircken biechlin (1522), D3. 14 Kanzler, B3.



numbers to the self-appointed prophet, Martin Luther. What reason is there, the writer asks, to abandon the "old, tried, well-founded faith" in favor of new, unfounded doctrines? The Lutherans accuse the Cath- olics of refusing to accept the Word of God. But what is the Word of God? The Bible, after all, must be interpreted, and nothing but confusion can result if every individual is allowed to interpret it for himself. The Lutheran preachers often disagree with one another, while Luther contradicts himself. The letter of the Bible may be "twisted and misinterpreted so as to make it speak with many voices and give it many [false] meanings: this is, in fact, what all heretics have done."15

In a similar vein, the Catholic priest Wolfgang Kanz- ler asks,

Why is it that [today] so many persons write on matters of faith, even though they have neither calling nor inspira- tion from God ? Writers have become as numerous as dogs with docked tails, and each one believes himself to be more learned than all the rest. They all want to talk and write about matters of doctrine, to teach and give advice, but only rarely does any one of them speak at God's command, in words that stem from God's own mouth. They abuse and vilify one another instead of preaching or writing something Christian.

The early Christian apostles, Kanzler continues, never made such unfounded and arrogant claims to originality. Their vocation came from God; they simply learned the way of truth and preached it in all humility. It would be pleasing if modern preachers followed their example.l6

The Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, Kanzler charges, has led to nothing but the rankest hypocrisy. Witness the conduct of the Protestant ministers, who consider themselves above reproach, when actually there is among them more hatred, envy, lying, deceit, and flattery than among the Catholic priests. While the latter are bad enough, at least they acknowledge their guilt of certain abuses, by which they have set a very bad example for the laity. Hy- pocrisy prevails not only among the ministers but also among the general body of the Protestant population. Luther's doctrine of justification has bred a general contempt for good works, and as a result there has been a notable decline in charity to the poor. Before the Protestant Revolt men extended generous aid to the unfortunate, who then never had any difficulty in finding enough to eat. The so-called Evangelical Christians, on the other hand, are helpful only with their mouths; as soon as called upon to part with money or possessions, they "no longer know how to be evangelical." They will not aid a poor man even if his condition stems from circumstances beyond his control. "I am not speaking," says Kanzler,

of those lazy, able-bodied beggars, of whom some still remain, who live in idleness and glibly talk hard workers

5 Ein Sendbrieff, A3-B1. 6 Kanzler, B2.

into parting with their possessions, even though they are perfectly able to earn their own bread. I am speaking of those who are poor, disabled, and sick, who have injuries and holes [in their bodies]; who at the same time have neither friends nor possessions; who have no one to turn to for aid and refuge; who have [many] children and yet are unable to work. These are the people whom one ought to help, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor (Mattthew 5[3-4, 16]).17

The anonymous author of How to Conquer Turkey also laments the consequences of the Lutheran doctrine of justification. Christendom is very much divided, he states; everyone calls himself "Evangelical" and pays little attention to good works. As a result of this doctrine there has been a terrible decline of the monastic orders. Germany is full of runaway monks and nuns who affect a desire to reform the whole world, but their conduct shows no proof of sincerity. Had they been truly interested in reform, they would have remained in the monasteries and worked toward the abolition of the many abuses existing there. In the cloister they would have had a secure livelihood, whereas in the world they merely become a burden upon society. They have no inclination to learn a trade, as they are not accustomed to work, their flesh having been made lazy by the ease of monastic life.18

With no less vehemence the Lutheran writers charge that the Turkish visitation is a divine chastisement for the errors of popery. They accuse the "Papists" of having repudiated the Word of God in favor of "false doctrines invented by human beings." They equate Catholicism with "idolatry," maintaining that the Ro- man Church has substituted the worship of the Virgin and the saints for that of Christ. The Nuremberg minister, Veit Dietrich, goes so far as to allege that God caused the Turk to conquer Hungary in order to punish the Magyars for elevating the Virgin to the status of a goddess.19

It is not surprising, the Lutheran writers contend, that Christendom has long been wicked; how could men know the will of God while the Romanist clergy kept them in ignorance of His Word? It was for this reason that God brought about the Reformation, causing the Gospel to be preached in unadulterated form, so that the Christians might perceive the error of their ways and turn from iniquity. And yet the great majority have rejected the Gospel and persisted in Papist errors. As if this were not enough, the Papists severely persecute the little handful of true Christians (i.e., the convinced Protestants), attempting to enforce "idolatry" at the point of the sword. They banish or kill all those who refuse to conform, particularly if the latter, in obedience to the dictates of conscience, voice their opinions openly.20

1 Ibid., [A4]-B. is Anzeigung, [A]-B. 19 Dietrich, Wie man das volck, [a4]. 20 Ibid., a3, b, e3; Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, B;

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 19681 29


The Papists allege, writes Veit Dietrich, that times were good until Luther's revolt brought about such divine visitations as the Peasants' Revolt, inflationary prices, pestilence, wars, and the Turkish peril. In reality the cause of the Turkish danger is not Lutheran- ism but popery. Steeped in idolatry for centuries, the Christians had long deserved divine punishment; its postponement until the sixteenth century is proof of God's mercy. Instead of punishing men for sins committed in ignorance, God had His Word preached among them, so that they might recognize their wickedness and change their ways. Had they reformed, He would have forgiven their past offenses and there would have been no Turkish visitation. But since they have stiffneckedly persisted in idolatry and other sins, it is no wonder that the Turk is now hammering at the gates of the Holy Roman Empire.21

For all their vituperation against the "Papists," the Protestant authors certainly did not regard their own

party as blameless. On the contrary, the statements of Luther and his disciples often reveal a bitter disillusion- ment, a conviction that their idealistic movement had met with little success in reforming human conduct. The ultra-Protestant Justus Jonas, in a criticism re-

markably similar to that made by the other side, writes that the break with Rome, instead of making men better Christians, has resulted in moral and spiritual anarchy. Many of those who call themselves Evangelical, he

declares,

seek in the Gospel nothing but carnal liberty. Now that they have abolished the old religious abuses, they ought to render true service to God. [That is, they ought to] recognize and fear His wrath, provoked by the sins of men; believe that He will forgive our sins by grace for the sake of Christ; rely upon Him in all afflictions; pray to Him for all good things, steadfastly hoping to receive them, especially where the honor of the holy Gospel is concerned; beseech Him to give all men a true understanding of His Gospel; help their fellow men in other ways also; and set a good example for all to follow. But these fruits [of the Gospel] are too often lacking. Men are becoming reprobate-devoid not only of fear of God but even of external discipline. They have grown tired of sermons and disdain their ministers as if the latter were filth and sweepings in the street. They would like to kick both the preachers and the Gospel [itself] with their feet. Moreover, peasant and burgher alike have nothing but contempt for the arts and sciences. No matter how hard one tries, one cannot persuade them to maintain schools for the best possible education of their children. All such things they regard as too expensive. They will not support such fine, useful, necessary institutions because they have already spent all their income to stuff their bellies. Fur- thermore, the coarse, common man is becoming insolent, rude, and bear-like in his wildness. One might think that the Gospel had reappeared solely for the purpose of giving loose fellows license for their vices-whereas actually it most earnestly demands honorable conduct.

Brentel, A; Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, A2-A3 (see below, appendix, p. 46).

21 Dietrich, Wie man das volck, e3.

How can such horrible, unheard-of impiety fail to provoke hard, terrible punishment and visitation of divine wrath? It is not for nothing that the Bible says to such impudent, cocksure scoffers: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: [for whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap." (Galatians 6:7)]. And clearly the punishment is, alas, before our very eyes: the Turk, who threatens to destroy body and soul alike.22

By and large, the Catholic pamphleteers were equally inclined to criticize the shortcomings of their own religious camp, particularly the corruption of the Papacy and clergy. (This subject did not greatly interest the Lutheran authors of Tiirkenbiichlein, who tended to emphasize the "false doctrines" rather than the bad conduct of the "Papists.")

The Catholic author of the Tiircken biechlin (1522) charges that the popes have long been absorbed in worldly concerns instead of devoting themselves to their spiritual functions as vicars of Christ. The "popes and their prelates, courtesans, domestic servants, and other hangers-on" receive large revenues from all over Christendom and waste these sums upon their own sinful pleasures. By "guile and skill developed through long practice" the Papacy has drained Christendom of its cash resources; consequently the kings of Europe have become so impoverished that it would be difficult to finance a general crusade against the Turk. Equally pernicious are the political designs and schemes of the Papacy, which have sown discord among the various Christian kings. The popes' constant feuds with the Holy Roman emperors have been particularly detri- mental to Christendom; the perennial conflict between its spiritual and temporal heads has done more than anything else to prevent the Christian world from com- bining its forces against the infidel.

It is sinful, continues the pamphleteer, for the popes to meddle in politics at all; as clergymen they should confine their activities entirely to the spiritual sphere. The political scheming of the popes clearly violates the precepts of Christ, who taught that Christendom should have two equal heads. "My kingdom is not of this world," He said [John 18: 36], and "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's" [Mark 12: 17]. But the Pope, disobeying this injunction, has elevated himself above the Emperor. Christendom would be much more united, and less vulnerable to Turkish attacks, if it had a single political head, such as the Ottoman Empire possesses in the person of the Sultan.23

Similarly, the Catholic author of How to Conquer Turkey addressed himself to the corruption of the

22 Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, B-B2. Similar arguments in Luther, Werke (Weimar ed.) 51: pp. 586-588, 590- 591, 623-624; Dietrich, Wie man das yolk, b; Greff, B.

23 Tiircken biechlin (1522), B2-B3, D2, E3. Similarly Curi- peschitz, also a Catholic, charges that the popes and clergy have long been primarily concerned not with the salvation of mankind but with "filling their purses." Luther is right in attacking the corruption, and wrong only in attacking the abuses, of the Church. (Curipeschitz, D.)



monasteries. Apparently he was himself a monk who, while strongly opposed to the Lutheran contention that the monasteries should be abolished, was willing to admit that the monasteries were full of abuses. There was a time, he writes, when the monks performed in- valuable services to Christendom. By hard work they cleared the forests and made the wilderness arable; they spurned worldly possessions and extended generous charity to the poor. But all this, unfortunately, has changed; the monks have become greedy parasites upon society. Their tithes impose a crushing burden on the poor; one-third of the manors are in their hands; and probably half of the real property in "all towns" is mortgaged to them. As the monks grow richer, Chris- tendom becomes progressively more impoverished; and this is one of the main causes of the Turkish conquests at the expense of Christian Europe. Too much of the wealth in Christian lands is controlled by the monasteries and is therefore inaccessible to the tax col- lectors of the kings and princes. As a result the rulers find it impossible to take war measures of sufficient magnitude to stem the tide of Turkish expansion.24

4. THE CALL TO REPENTANCE, REFORM, AND PRAYER

If there was any aim that most of the pamphleteers had in common, it was to bring about the moral and spiritual regeneration of the Christians as individuals and as a society. The existence of the Turkish peril provided them with a particularly strong argument to the effect that the Christians must "mollify the paternal heart of God" 25 through repentance, reform, and prayer, thus persuading Him to forgive their sins and accept them once again as His dear children. Many writers argued that such spiritual discipline was the prerequisite for military victory over the Turk, as God was not likely to permit the Christians to defeat the infidel while they still required punishment. Veit Dietrich spoke for the great majority of the authors when he wrote, "So long as the burden of our sins is upon us, the Turk remains undefeated and must con- tinue to win victories." But if the Christians reformed, they would find it easy to defeat the Turk, for in such a case his "scimitars would soon become dull." 26 Vir- tually all authors stated that if the Turk ceased to be an agent of divine chastisement, he would become incapable of any further notable success either on the battlefield or in the propagation of Islam. For he would then be nothing more than a "murderer," "brigand," and would-be destroyer of the Christian faith. Instead

24 Anzeigung, A3. 25These words of Osiander (C2) express an idea that

occurs in almost every pamphlet. 26 Dietrich, Wie man das volck, e4, g2. The same argument

in Kretz, A2 (see appendix, p. 41).

of granting him further successes, God and the angels would fight on the side of the Christian armies.27

It was conceivable, of course, that only a few Chris- tians would repent, while the majority remained as wicked as ever. This, in fact, seemed likely to Luther and other Protestant writers, while their Catholic counterparts usually took a more optimistic view of the possibility of general repentance. The reason for the difference lay in the peculiarly Lutheran eschatological views which we noted in an earlier chapter. The Protestants believed that they were living in the last times; that these times were an age of unrepentant iniquity; that only a handful of Christians were inclined to feel sorry for their sins and to make an honest effort to keep God's commandments. But if the wicked majority did not repent, thus inviting terrible divine retribution through the Turk, what would be the fate of "God's little handful"? It seemed possible that God would spare the entire population of Germany in answer to the prayers of the pious; but it also seemed possible that He would cause the Turk to invade or even conquer Germany to punish the unrepentant majority. In the latter case, the pious would have to suffer along with the wicked, and yet the Turk would not be able to do them real harm if they remained steadfast in the faith. The infidel could kill or enslave their bodies but not their souls.28 It was entirely possible, wrote Andreas Osiander, that God would use the enslaved and transported saints as missionaries for the Gospel in Turkey, thus causing the Christian faith to flourish once again in that part of the world.29

Still another possibility, the Protestant theologians believed, was that God would preserve the saints from tribulation by hastening the advent of the Last Judg- ment. How wonderful it would be, wrote Luther in 1541, if God, instead of giving military victory to the saints, were to show them even greater mercy by hastening the Second Coming of Christ.30

Naturally enough, both Protestant and Catholic writers called upon the Christians to pray for deliverance from the Turkish scourge. The pamphlets are full of exhortations to "prayer against the Turk"-prayer for a contrite and repentant spirit, forgiveness of sins, and remission of the well-deserved punishment; for the victory of the Christian armies; for the preservation of Christian souls from the danger of Islamization.31

27 Osiander, C2. Here again Osiander gives particularly articulate expression to the views of all or most of the pamphleteers.

28 Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 51: pp. 597-598, 618-619; Dietrich, Wie man das volck, i2-i3.

29 Osiander, A4, C. See also Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 51: p. 621, lines 5-10.

30 Ibid., p. 614, lines 7-16. 31 In addition to such exhortations, a number of the Tiirken-

biichlein contain actual prayers. See, for example, the Brenz tract in the appendix, p. 50. It is interesting to note that there were also pamphlets consisting exclusively of prayer- hymns against the Turk: Wider den Tiircken. Ein diemiietig

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 31


V. IDEAS ON WAR AGAINST THE TURK

1. THEOLOGICAL VIEWS: CHRISTIAN FAITH AND WAR

Most of the authors believed that the Turk must be combatted by armed force as well as by the spiritual weapons of repentance and pious living.' They regarded such warfare as important for practical reasons and, above all, as pleasing to God. Most of them did not doubt that a Christian could, in good conscience, engage in armed violence against such an enemy as the Turk. Only a small group of writers, all of them theologians, concerned themselves in more or less systematic fashion with the ethical foundations of such violence. These writers, for reasons that will emerge presently, were more often Protestants than Catholics.

The Catholic authors of Tiirkenbiichlein, whether clergymen or laymen, were strongly under the influence of the traditional crusading ideology. They took for granted that there was a perpetual struggle between Christendom and Islam; that warfare against the Mos- lems was therefore always justified; that it could always be expected to have the blessing of the Church. The purpose of such combat, they assumed, was the defense or even the extension of the Christian faith. None of them raised the question whether it was morally acceptable to shed blood in the name of Christ. The

bekhdntniis vor Gott unserer siinden . . . (n. p., n. n., n. d.); Zwey newe Lieder . . . zu Gott, vmb hilff wider den Tiircken .. (Niirnberg, G. Wachter, n. d.).

In faraway England the Anglican Church published A Fourme to be vsed in Common prayer, . . . To excite and stirre all godly people to pray vnto God for the preseruation of those Christians and their Countreys, that are nowe inuaded by the Turke in Hungary or elswhere . .. [1566].

1A small minority of the authors took no interest in warfare or even in prayers for victory. Though they do not seem to have been dogmatic pacifists, they assumed that if the Turkish peril was a divine visitation, the answer lay exclusively in repentance and pious living; all else was secondary or unimportant. One of these authors, our old friend Wolfgang Kanzler, argued that, if the Christians repented and prayed, God would deliver them from the Turk in some way, not necessarily by giving victory to their armies. "After all, the Almighty can strike him [the Turk] down in a moment's time without using any armies (wor) whatever." (Kanzler, [B4].)

Similarly, the Bohemian Protestant poet Jorg Brentel wrote (apparently in 1542 or 1543) that the Germans' failure to win a decisive victory over Suleiman was unimportant because a Turkish invasion could do no real harm to truly pious Christians. The Turk could do no more than kill their bodies, thus hastening their souls' journey to paradise. (Brentel, A3-[A4].)

The Nuremberg Lutheran minister, Sebald Heyden, also argued that a true Christian had no reason to fear the Turk (or such other divine visitations as the Pope-Antichrist, pestilence, and inflationary prices). Although the Christian should pray God to preserve him from such tribulations, he should accept them cheerfully if it be God's will to inflict them. A genuinely pious person regards such afflictions not as evils but as "healthful medicine for his soul" and as "killers of such sins as still remain in his flesh." Even death holds no terrors for him, since he knows that God's will is always for the best. (Heyden, b2.)

crusading ideal was so much a part of their makeup that even the most sophisticated among them did not subject the ideal to theological scrutiny. They con- tented themselves with simply restating the time- honored ideal, arguing not for its validity, which they took for granted, but for its relevance to their own times. The Turkish and Islamic threat to Christian Europe, they believed, obviously called for a crusade. They exhorted the German Emperor and princes to wage a holy war for the preservation of the faith, for the physical security of the Holy Roman Empire, and for the territorial integrity of Christendom. Beyond this, some writers advocated offensive military action against the Ottoman Empire; they envisaged a general European crusade with such traditional goals as the eviction of the Turk from Europe, the liberation of his Christian subjects, the reconquest of Constantinople and the Holy Sepulcher, and the extirpation of Islam at the point of the sword.2

On the Protestant side we have a very different picture. Luther, both in his Tiirkenbiichlein and elsewhere, subjected the crusading ideology to unsparing criticism, partly because crusades were closely associated with indulgences and papal taxation, partly because he believed that "holy wars" were contrary to the spirit of Christianity. In On War against the Turks he wrote that crusades were wrong because of the participation of the clergy, that this confusion of secular and spiritual callings was an offense against the divine order. He also argued that it was impious for the Emperor and other secular rulers to pose as defenders of the faith, since the sole protector of the faith was Christ Himself, who needed no assistance from human princes and armies. It was not by force that Christians should combat the false and dangerous doctrines of Islam, but by the spiritual weapons of repentance, prayer, and pious living.3

Although he condemned crusades, Luther nonetheless believed that the Germans should offer determined military resistance to Turkish aggression. He advocated a "just war" for the defense not of the Christian faith but of lives, property, and the divinely instituted civil authorities of the Holy Roman Empire. The Turk, in his opinion, was no better than a murderer and a brigand who had attacked the German Emperor and princes without provocation and threatened the security of their subjects. It was the duty of legitimate rulers to defend society against such disturbers of the public peace. The Emperor and princes, therefore, should oppose the Turk by the sword, just as they should oppose domestic criminals. Similarly, the German people

2This view was stated in fairly systematic fashion by Matthias Kretz, [A4]-B. (See below, pp. 43-44.) See also Nausea, A2b; Haselberg, [Al], B-B2; Curipeschitz, D. Prob- ably the author of the Tiircken biechlin (1522) also regarded war against the Turk as a crusade.

3Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 108-115, 130- 131.


IDEAS ON WAR AGAINST THE TURK

should gladly pay special war taxes or perform any other service exacted by the governments in connection with the Turkish war. For it was the duty of Christian subjects to obey their divinely appointed civil authorities and to assist them in combating all danger of sub- version.4

Luther's views were fully shared by his disciple Justus Jonas, who expressed himself as follows: "Al- though the Turks are un-Christians, there would not be sufficient cause to make war on them if they kept the peace" and did not engage in criminal aggression. Neither the Holy Roman Emperor nor any other ruler has a mandate from God "to start a war against un- Christians on purely religious grounds." Such warfare is, in any case, a futile endeavor: "We can kill un- Christians with our fists, but we cannot make Christians of them with our fists-we cannot, in this way, put faith and the Holy Spirit into their hearts." Nonetheless

4 Ibid., pp. 129-135, 137-140. For a full treatment of Luther's views on the Turkish war, see H. Lamparter, Luthers Stellung zum Tiirkenkrieg (Tiibingen, 1940). Summaries of Luther's position are found in K. M. Setton, "Lutheranism and the Turkish Peril," Balkan Studies 3 (1962): pp. 133-168, esp. pp. 141-153; G. Forell, "Luther and the War against the Turks," Church History 14 (1945): pp. 256-271; H. Buchanan, "Luther and the Turks," Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 47, Part II (1956) : pp. 145-159.

The concept of just war was not, of course, original with Luther; it was an integral part of the medieval Christian tradition. According to Buchanan (pp. 146-147), "the dis- tinction between a just war and a crusade was precise. A just war entailed the defense of justice, which was generally under- stood to mean the rights, persons, or property of individuals, and had to be fought under the direction of a duly constituted government in accord with certain humanitarian rules. A crusade, on the other hand, was a war to defend the Cross or extend the Faith, initiated or perhaps even conducted by the Church itself. In theory, such a holy service was performed in response to the command of a lay superior. In a crusade, the traditional ban on clerical participation naturally tended to break down.... Finally, a crusade, especially if combined with a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, was a good work, and as such provided the crusader with particular spiritual benefits which contributed to his salvation: i.e., it was one of the most efficacious forms of penance."

In his Exhortation of 1541 Luther seemingly contradicted his earlier repudiation of religious war: " . . . we [the true Christians] are not fighting (streiten) to gain lands and subjects, possessions and honor, . . . but rather to preserve God's Word and Church, particularly for the sake of our dear children and descendants; we intend to resist the Turk so that he may not supplant our dear Lord Jesus Christ by ... the blasphemous Mahomet. This is the fundamental cause and earnest meaning of our struggle (streits) . . " (Werke, Weimar ed., 51: pp. 619-620.) There is a similar passage, probably derived from Luther, in Veit Dietrich's Wie man das volck, [b4]. This raises the question whether the Protestant theologians really had divested themselves completely from the traditional belief that the Christian faith could and should be defended by the sword. But probably the inconsistency in their statements is more apparent than real; it must be remembered that when they spoke of "struggle" against the Turk they had in mind not only physical combat but also prayer-spiritual warfare- against the further spread of Islam. For a fuller discussion of this problem see Lamparter, pp. 114-118.

the German Emperor and princes have good cause to use armed force against the Turk, for he is a habitual disturber of the peace and threatens the physical security of their subjects.5

Being theologians, Luther and Jonas took little interest in such secular matters as strategy and tactics, which they preferred to leave to the rulers and soldiers. But their theological views nonetheless implied a narrowly defensive strategy. Their idea of the "just war" ruled out all military operations that were not obviously intended for the defense of the imperial frontiers. They did approve of German expeditions to Hungary, but only because that country might otherwise become a permanent Turkish base of operations against the Holy Roman Empire. Apparently it did not occur to them that the German Empire's best defense might possibly lie in punitive expeditions into the Ottoman Balkans. Still less did they envisage a grand campaign that would end forever the Turkish menace to Central Europe, for they regarded such a decisive victory as impossible. They were theologically committed to the belief that the Turkish peril would endure until the Last Judgment; in the meantime, the Christian armies could secure partial victories at best. These views of Luther and Jonas were shared by virtually all the other Protestant writers.6

Intermediate between Luther's position and that of the Catholics was the view of the Protestant theologian Andreas Osiander. In his tract of 1542 he wrote that the Christians of Germany are waging a "just, defensive war" (rechtmessigen notkrieg) not only against the physical aggression of the Turk but also against the spread of Islam. A convinced Christian who perishes in the struggle does so "primarily for the sake of the name of Christ." The Turk is mortally hostile to such Christians primarily because they will not forsake Christ, accept "the blasphemous lies of the diabolical Mahomet," or permit the further propagation of these falsehoods. "Forever blessed are all those who would rather shed their blood and die" than tolerate the expansion of Islam.7

Whatever their differences, Protestant and Catholic theologians agreed on the essential point that the Chris- tians of Germany should resist Turkish aggression by armed violence. This view was not universally held

5 Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, [G4]. 6 Dietrich, Der xx. Psalm, [a4]; Greff, A3; Knaust, A3. All

these writers, like Luther, advocate a purely defensive just war, but do not explain their attitude toward the traditional belief that the Cross may be defended by the sword. Different from Luther's view in some respects, though not in essentials, are the opinions of the Protestant theologian Johannes Brenz (see below, appendix, p. 48). The Lutheran polemicist Hartmut von Kronberg differs from the Reformer in that he advocates offensive warfare aiming at the destruction of the Ottoman Empire (see below, pp. 36-37). This divergence is not surprising because Kronberg wrote his pamphlet in 1523, before Luther had fully explained his own position to his followers.

7 Osiander, C3.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 33


among the German people; there were many, particularly the pacifist Anabaptists, who believed that the use of violence under any circumstances was un-Christian. The spread of pacifist ideas worried the Lutheran theologian Johannes Brenz, who feared that it might greatly weaken Germany's capacity to repel a Turkish invasion. Accordingly he devoted a rather lengthy section of his Tiirkenbiichlein to a refutation of the pacifists' arguments. While granting that Christ had prohibited violence in private affairs, Brenz contended that this prohibition does not extend to the public sphere. The civil authorities have not only the right but the duty to combat evildoers by the sword; warfare against the Turk is praiseworthy since the cause is just.8

The Catholic Bishop of Vienna, Friedrich Nausea, also sought to refute the pacifist position of the Ana-

baptists. He admitted that Christ had enjoined his followers to live peaceably, but contended that violence is not therefore always wrong. More than once in the Old Testament, he argued, God Himself had engaged in combat against the enemies of Israel, and on other occasions He expressly commanded His chosen people to take up arms. Similarly, various saints of New Testament times and later periods made use of the sword with divine approval. It is impossible for Christians to live at peace with the Turk because he is a habitual disturber of the peace. The German

Emperor and princes have a divinely imposed duty to

protect their subjects from such brigands. Thus Nausea, much like the Protestant theologians, represented the fight against the Turk as a just war; but at the same time he regarded it as a crusade, for he added the characteristically Catholic argument that the Christian soldiers should fight for the defense of the Christian faith against the encroachments of Islam. For Catholic writers, crusade and just war were by no means mutually exclusive.9

Catholic and Protestant authors alike believed that the struggle against the Turk must be waged not only by armed force but also by the spiritual weapons of repentance, pious living, and prayer. Indeed, they regarded such spiritual combat as far more important than military action. In the words of Justus Jonas:

Since the Turkish Empire is the power of the devil, not of man, we cannot overcome it with muskets and cannon, with human might and armaments. Against the devil we must fight with earnest prayer. We should pray diligently not only against the violence and murder with which the Turk assails the body, but also against his false doctrines. [That is, we should implore God Almighty to grant], for the sake of His holy name's honor, that the spread of these doctrines may be checked; that Mahomet and his poison may be discomfited; that a few souls, at least, may be saved.10

8 Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, [B4]-C (appendix, pp. 49-50). 9 Nausea, A2. 10 Jonas, Das siebend Capitel Danielis, G2.

In a similar vein, the Catholic priest Matthias Kretz declared:

... if we desire victory over the Turk we must pray, because victory stems not from man but from God. "The horse is prepared for the day of battle: but the Lord giveth safety" (Proverbs 21 [31]). Therefore we must not rely upon our own military power; we must place our trust in God Almighty and beseech Him to grant victory. Kretz exhorts the entire Christian community to pray for the victory of the Emperor's armies:

God wills that we pray to Him; therefore let everyone fervently call upon Him-young and old, clergy and laity, as well as the warrior in the field.ll

As the foregoing quotation shows, some authors sought to provide spiritual guidance for German soldiers actually engaged in warfare against the Turk. Thus the Lutheran minister Veit Dietrich, in a passage addressed to military commanders of his own faith, exhorted them to conduct the campaign in a spirit of Christian humility. He urged them to take to heart the words of the Twentieth Psalm: "Some trust in chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord our God" (Psalm 20: 7). This is not to say, Dietrich explains, that the captains should take a contemptuous attitude toward horses and chariots: God expects a commander to make full use of the resources at his disposal. By virtue of his office, the commander has the duty to make his army as strong as possible. But he would court disaster if he were arrogantly to rely upon his own might, forgetting that God is the arbiter of battles.

If you are a captain in the field and desire victory, then prepare for battle to the best of your ability, paying close attention to all details and acquiring as much equipment as you possibly can. Thereafter fall down upon your knees in all humility, lift up your hands to God, and beseech Him to come to your aid. Remember that unless He were to participate in the battle and vanquish the foe, you and all your might and armament would be lost.

Dietrich exhorts the Christian captain to wage the just war without such ulterior motives as a desire for personal glory and material gain. The wrong attitude, he warns, would provoke God and result in failure of the campaign. The Christian soldier should devote himself single-mindedly to the defense of his homeland against the murderous foe.l2

Matthias Kretz also insisted that God would favor the Christian warriors only if their motives were pure. As a devout Catholic, he naturally exhorted the soldiers to fight in the spirit of true crusaders:

The attitude of the Christian fighters against the Turk should be as follows. They should fight not in order to

11 Kretz, A3, [A4]. For the context of these passages, see the appendix, pp. 41-43.

12 Dietrich, Der xx. Psalm, [f4]-g, h3. Dietrich was addressing himself particularly to commanders of Lutheran contingents that participated in the Hungarian campaign of 1542.



gain great honor and glory, nor to acquire lands and possessions, nor out of anger and a desire for vengeance. Such motives are Turkish, not Christian, and one cannot vanquish Turks with Turks. Our warriors should fight in order to preserve and maintain, defend and protect, the name and honor of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of His holy faith, which the Turk, its hereditary foe, is seeking to extirpate.

Kretz adds that the soldiers should also be motivated by a desire to liberate their Eastern Christian brethren from the "unbearable tyranny" of the Sultan. He concludes by implying that they should seek the utter destruction of the Islamic Turkish Empire, so that the name of Christ may be propagated and worshiped "without hindrance" throughout the world.13

2. IDEAS ON THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE CONFLICT

If some authors considered the struggle against the Turk from a purely theological or pastoral point of view, others took a strong interest in the practical aspects of the conflict. Their pamphlets contain fairly detailed discussions of such subjects as the efficiency of the Turkish military system as compared with that of the Holy Roman Empire; the disunity of Germany and Christendom as a source of military weakness; the need for unity and concord in the face of the Turkish menace; and the specific measures that the rulers of Germany and Europe might take to vanquish the "enemy of the faith." Since the authors were not experts in strategy or high politics, their treatment of these subjects is somewhat fragmentary and not always systematic; but their ideas present an interesting picture of the secular side of the conflict as seen by intelligent amateur observers.

In 1518 an anonymous writer, who seems to have been a Franciscan friar, published his Project for a Crusade against the Turks and All Other Enemies of the Christian Faith. This is not a Tiirkenbiichlein in the sense that I have been using the term, for it originated before the fall of Belgrade and therefore had nothing to do with any major Turkish threat to Central Europe. It nonetheless deserves consideration here because it was often reprinted in the period of this study and seems to have influenced some of the authors of Tiirkenbiichlein.

The Franciscan advocates a general crusade to be waged by a European league, with the ambitious aim of destroying the Turkish Empire and the Islamic religion. He proposes the establishment of a large standing army and devotes much space to methods of bringing such a force into existence. Most of the necessary funds, he writes, could be raised by means of

13Kretz, [A4]-B. For the context of this passage, see the appendix, pp. 41, 43-44. Kretz was addressing himself particularly to German soldiers who participated in the Turkish campaign of 1532.

tfbl(bsrtw(? (fgraurhl menin3 bditW rf itn Zrannecp&e 2irii

t/tlurcdtbwcbenbbisbcr til btftifcn blurs vttagon/lf4mpc Xtanb tnbku ten bcfidabiqt vnb bcrbti wotbn.

M. D. XXXXI.

FIG. 4. Landsknechte on the march. (Project for a Crusade against the Turks, 1542 edition. Austrian National Library.)

a special tax, a Wochenpfennig (weekly penny) to be paid by every adult communicant in Christendom, re- gardless of social rank. He also calls for voluntary donations by "great and mighty princes and lords, as well as other pious persons, both lay and clerical." In addition, he urges the rulers to impose a special tax upon the Jews, who in his opinion are wealthy enough to contribute a tidy sum to the war chest.

He calculates that the weekly penny alone would yield, in a single year, 18,468,000 Hungarian Gulden- enough to hire 124,800 cavalrymen and as many foot soldiers, or a total of 249,600 mercenaries.

It would be easy, he continues, to equip this force with a great abundance of artillery pieces. The Holy Roman Empire alone could provide more than enough weapons of this kind, even if each prince and imperial city were to contribute but one gun.14

The friar expresses rather definite views on the strategy to be followed. In the first place, he proposes the division of the army into five large units, each of which would garrison an unspecified sector of Christen- dom's eastern frontier. Each unit would then make

14Dast ist ein anschlag eyns zugs wider die Tiirckenn, Vnnd alle die wyder den Christenlichen Glawbenn seyndt, [A]-[A4].

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 35


frequent inroads into enemy territory, always occupying the ten or fifteen square miles adjacent to its bases but never penetrating deeply. By keeping their forces divided and remaining close to their bases, the Christians would avoid the danger of being annihilated in a single unfortunate battle. This strategy would have another advantage as well: the Turks would be able to retaliate only by attacking the Christians at their own bases, in which case the garrisons would have the entire Christian world behind them. They would have no difficulty in obtaining reinforcements, since many a knight, eager to win glory by fighting for the Cross, would rush to their assistance.

The author had no doubt that the Christians, by following this plan, could destroy the Ottoman Empire and restore the Holy Sepulcher to the hands of the faithful.15

This Project appeared in various new editions in 1522, 1532, 1541, and 1542-that is, during or immediately after some of the offensives of Suleiman the Magnificent in the Danubian basin. The large number of editions would seem to indicate that the pamphlet sold well. Its popularity is puzzling in that its contents had little relation to the political realities that existed during Suleiman's wars. The plan proposed by the author, involving a combination of border warfare and territorial conquests, was hardly the answer to Suleiman's offensives; and in any case a Europe divided by the religious and political controversies of the Reformation era was not likely to unite in a crusade against the Turk. The simplest explanation for the pamphlet's popularity is that any publication with the word Tiirck in its title was almost certain to find pur- chasers at times when excitement over the Turkish question ran high; at any rate, this is what the printers seem to have assumed. But this is not likely to be the whole story. It may well be that the Project had a special appeal precisely because of the critical situation that existed-a divided Germany and Christendom facing the onslaught of Suleiman's hosts. At least the author proposed a definite plan of action, based on common-sense calculations, which seemed entirely feasible if only the Christians had the will to put it into effect.

The author of the first Tiirkenbiichlein (1522) also proposes a rather ambitious war plan, with the difference that he shows far greater awareness of the obstacles to success. He begins by pointing out that the Turk is a formidable military adversary. Like most of the authors he attributes the Turk's many victories on European soil to the sins of the Christians, but unlike most writers he also considers the secular causes of Turkish success. He stresses the unity and strength of the Turks under the absolute authority of their sultan, in contrast to the disunity and weakness of the Chris- tians under their many quarreling kings, princes, and

15 Ibid., [A4].

prelates. When the "Turkish emperor" goes to war, "those of his faith" obediently flock to the colors; but if the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor or both together were to proclaim a crusade, "they would be dis- obeyed not only by some kings and large communes in Christendom, but even by some of their own subjects.l1

The pamphleteer argues that the rulers of Europe must learn to cooperate against the Turk if they do not wish to become "slaves or serfs." They must immediately recruit an army to guard "the frontiers facing the Turk," which presumably means the borders of Hungary and the Habsburg lands. This will prevent the Turk from making further inroads into Europe and will permit the Christian kings and princes to concen- trate upon preparations for an offensive crusade. Such an international enterprise can succeed only with the aid of skillful and large-scale diplomacy. The various governments must coordinate their war plans and fore- stall the rise of rivalries among themselves. Agree- ments must be made in advance with respect to the division of the spoils in the event of territorial conquests at the expense of the Turk. It would be advis- able to establish a council of plenipotentiary diplomatic missions which would remain in session for the duration of the war. The Christians should also use diplomacy as a means of weakening the enemy; they should do

everything in their power to foment a rebellion by the Christian population of the Ottoman Balkans, or at any rate induce these people not to support the Sultan's war effort. By bribery or other enticements the European rulers should secure the alliance or at least the neu-

trality of Morocco.17 Another pamphleteer, the Lutheran knight Hartmut

von Kronberg, offered a simple solution to the problem of Christian disunity. Writing in 1523, when the waves of Lutheran enthusiasm were rising high, he expressed the hope that all Europe would "accept the

Gospel" and then take common military action against the Turk. Addressing himself to the reform-minded Pope, Adrian VI, he asks him, of all people, to abolish the Papacy and clergy and to institute preachers of the

Gospel (Lutheran ministers) throughout Europe. In addition, he suggests that the Patrimony of St. Peter be divided between the Holy Roman Emperor and the

King of France, thus ending the rivalry between the two leading Christian sovereigns and making them willing to take united action against the Turk. He further suggests that the wealth of the defunct Catholic clergy

16Tiircken biechlin (1522), E3. Similar arguments in the fictitious Letter from a Resident of Turkey: " . . . there is such obedience among the people, and it is maintained by such severe

punishments, that if the emperor or his official says to a rich burgher or to anyone else, of whatever station, 'Leave your wife and children, and move to this or that island,' or 'Throw

yourself into the sea,' the man readily obeys." A subject of the Sultan would not dare refuse military service because he "would be put to death as soon as his disobedience became known." (Ausszug, a3.)

17 Tiircken biechlin (1522), E4-fE5].



be divided into three portions. The first would be used to support the deposed priests the rest of their lives; the second would provide a livelihood for the new preachers of the Gospel; the third would be used to finance a gigantic offensive against the Turk, both by land and by sea, to liberate the numerous "Christian brethren" who have been living under the Turkish yoke.18

After vanquishing the Turks, the Christians should preach the Gospel to them. Heretofore all attempts to convert the Moslems have failed because the infidels, like everyone else, have identified Christianity with the false papal church. But if it were explained to the Moslems that Jesus, not the Pope, is the foundation of Christianity, they may "voluntarily embrace" the true faith. Indeed, Kronberg concludes, the preaching of the Gospel may eventually persuade not only the Mos- lems but "all the peoples of the whole earth" to accept Christianity.'9

Naturally there were also Catholics who based their dreams of a crusade upon the reunion of the Christians in the Church of Rome. One such person was the itinerant bookseller Johann Haselberg, who published his pamphlet in 1530. His fervor knew no bounds: he hoped that a divine miracle would end all religious and even political strife within Christendom. The new spirit of brotherhood and unity, he believed, would enable Emperor Charles V, at the head of a general crusade, to sweep the Turks before him:

The walls of cities, even if they were cast by ironmasters or other clever craftsmen, would not withstand our laudable Emperor. Even if the Turkish emperor were three times as powerful as he is, he would still have to flee his homeland before the Christian Emperor. All the treasure hoards of Christendom would be opened and willingly placed at the disposal of this Emperor. Many a pious Christian would abandon all his possessions and go into battle under the knightly banner of St. George, to avenge the enormities perpetrated by the Turk upon so many hundreds of thousands of innocent Christians. Many a gray-bearded Swiss, armed with his long pike, would come forth with eight or ten stalwart sons at his side. There is no telling how many brave, earnest Christian warriors would set out to win knightly glory by challenging the cruel tyranny of the Turk; [they would be as numerous as] the dewdrops on a cool morn in May. The Jews and all other sects in Christendom would lend their support to the Christian campaign; to say nothing of the pious little old grand- mothers, who would unearth the treasures long buried be- neath the soil, so as to take part in such a laudable enterprise.

After the crusade "there would return what has been called the Golden Age." The church of St. Sophia at Constantinople and the Holy Sepulcher would be once again in the undisturbed possession of the faithful.

18Die Schriften Hartmuths von Cronberg, ed. E. Kiick (Halle, 1899), pp. 117-119.

19 Ibid., pp. 119-120. It will be noted that the Lutheran Kronberg, in contrast to the Catholic writers, did not believe that the Moslems could or should be converted by force.

"The Mahometan and Saracenic religion would be ex- tirpated, and a Christian order would prevail throughout the world." 20

As this example shows, chiliastic hope ran high in the years around 1530, and its standard-bearers cared little for the realities of the day.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Haselberg's fantastic "project" is the role of Charles V. The Turkish peril led Haselberg and many others to yearn for a divinely guided hero who would lead the Christians to ultimate victory over the "hereditary foe." If anyone was a natural candidate for this role, it was Emperor Charles, the mightiest prince in Christendom, champion of Catholic world monarchy, leading exponent of the crusading ideal, and a man of imagination and mystique. Haselberg mentions "prophecies" to the effect that Charles was indeed destined to play this role; such prophecies at that time circulated widely among the German people in the form of pamphlets and folk songs.21 Charles had considerable appeal not only to Haselberg but to the authors of Tiirkenbiichlein in general. If some criticized him for failing to prosecute the Turkish war with sufficient vigor, they at least gave him credit for good intentions. Even the Prot- estant authors had respect for him and did not attack him personally when they inveighed against the "Papists." 22 The Catholic writers naturally treated him with even greater veneration, for they regarded him as the divinely ordained temporal head of all Christendom.23

Interesting ideas on the conflict with the Turk were voiced by Benedict Curipeschitz who, it will be re- called, wrote his pamphlet about 1531, shortly after his trip to Constantinople. Although somewhat better versed than most authors in things Turkish, he was

20 Haselberg, B-B2. 21Ibid., B2; Ain Prophecey vnd Weissagung von den Vier

erben Hertzog Johansen von Burgundi . . ,A2; H. Patrias, "Die Tiirkenkriege im Volkslied" (Wien, 1947), p. 37; R. von Liliencron, Die historischen Volkslieder (Leipzig, 1865-69) 3: No. 364. There is another "prophecy" of the impending fall of the Turkish Empire (though without reference to Charles V) in Abschrifft ains bryeffs von Constantinopel, Auss wolchem man zu vernemen hat, wilcher gestalt der Gross Tiirck seine Priester und Doctores hat lassen vmbbringen, ... Vnd was fur grosse zaichen erschinen seinnd . . . (Augsburg, M. Ramminger, 1539; separate edition, n. p., n. n., 1540).

22 See, for example, Luther, Werke, Weimar ed., 30, Part II: pp. 129-130; Brenz, Tiircken Biichlein, A2 (appendix, p. 46); Kronberg, pp. 117 ff. See also Ein hiibsch new Lied, a2-a3.

23Tiircken biechlin (1522), B3, E2, E3, E4; Kretz, A2 (appendix, p. 41); Rathschlag, passim. Curipeschitz (Dl) expresses the hope that "the pious Emperor Charles," if he man- ages to secure aid and cooperation from other Christian rulers, will reconquer Belgrade, Hungary, and Rhodes for Christendom. The author of a folk song (Liliencron, Die historischen Volks- lieder 4: No. 438) hoped that Charles would restore the unity of Christendom and that religious errors would be abandoned in the face of the Turkish menace. On Charles, see also Liliencron, 4: Nos. 421 and 440.

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 37


also an alarmist who tended to exaggerate both the grav- ity of the Turkish threat to Central Europe and the supposed indifference to the danger among the rulers and people of the Holy Roman Empire. The Sultan, he warned, was a formidable enemy whose power and aggressiveness should not be taken so lightly. He was obsessed with the vast size of Suleiman's army, which in his view comprised 100,000 "Sophia" (sipahis or feudal cavalrymen), 12,000 janissaries, and 2,000 elite court cavalry. This host, he points out, is constantly ready to go to war at a moment's notice, while the standing army of "our king," Ferdinand, consists of no more than 12,000 men.24 Curipeschitz feared that all the military advantages were therefore on the side of the Turks. Unimpressed by the Turkish reverse at Vienna, he believed that there was still great danger of a Turkish conquest of Austria and Germany. Appar- ently it did not occur to him to consider the possible advantages that the Germans might have in defending their home ground against an enemy remote from his bases.

Curipeschitz expresses envious admiration for the military and administrative organization of the Ottoman Empire, which he regards as vastly superior to that of the Holy Roman Empire. The Sultan, he writes, is able to maintain such a vast army because he is an absolute monarch with full control over the manpower and economic resources of his realm. In Turkey there is but one lord, the "Turkish emperor"; there are no intermediate authorities between the monarch and his subjects, no princes and nobles like those of Germany and other European countries. The feudal sipahis (cavalrymen) are not nobles but simply soldiers who receive landed fiefs in return for military service. These lands belong not to the sipahis but to the Sultan. Each sipahi is given the right to collect dues from the Christian peasants who inhabit the one, two, or three villages located on his fief. Part of this revenue must be turned over to the Sultan, the rest provides a livelihood for the sipahi and enables him to pay for his own military equipment. Thus the Turkish feudal class, unlike the European nobility, is not a privileged aristo- cracy capable of limiting the power of the monarch. Completely dependent upon the sultan, the sipahis obediently perform the military service required of them. If any sipahi refused to obey the call to arms, he would lose his fief and would be subjected to severe corporal punishment.25 In a similar position are the janissaries, the elite infantry who are slaves of the

24 Curipeschitz, [B4]. 25 Ibid. This rough sketch of the Ottoman feudal system

seems correct in essentials but imprecise in some details. For modern scholarly treatments of the subject see L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans since 1453 (New York, 1958), pp. 86-87; S. N. Fisher, "Ottoman Feudalism and Its Influence upon the Bal- kans," The Historian 15, 1 (Autumn, 1952), pp. 3-16; H. A. R. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West (London and New York, 1950-1957) 1, Part I: pp. 46-56, 247-248.

Sultan and dependent upon him for support. The Sul- tan has no difficulty in supporting these slave soldiers because of the large tax revenues which are collected regularly and rigorously from his Christian subjects.26

But it is not because of fear alone that the Turkish soldier serves obediently and efficiently. Full of enthusiasm for Islam, he believes that warfare against the Christians is a meritorious activity, his path to paradise. He is also motivated by the hope of capturing Christian men, women, and children whom he can sell at high prices in the slave markets. There is no such incentive for the German soldier since slavery does not exist in his homeland. "It would not be a bad thing" if German soliders were allowed to sell Turkish prison- ers; they might then become more eager to participate in campaigns against the Sultan.27

The Holy Roman Empire faces serious disadvantages in the struggle with the Turk. By and large the Ger- man common man, unlike his Turkish counterpart, is not accustomed to military life, and the nobility has lost the martial spirit for which it was once noted. The political decentralization of the Empire is a source of military weakness. The Emperor, unlike the Sultan, has little control over his subjects, especially the autono- mous princes. He cannot simply command the princes to go to war because each territorial ruler has his "princely regalia," including the right to refuse personal participation in a campaign. At the imperial diets the Emperor must "beg" the Estates for military aid, and then invariably "there is such poverty in the Empire that very little is granted." The territorial rulers think that "twenty or thirty thousand men are enough to rout the Turks." This was about the size of the force that they were willing to raise for the relief of Vienna in 1529. But the Turkish withdrawal from Vienna was not a rout, and the Turkish attack is bound to be re- newed in the near future. "If our Christian forces were three times as numerous as they are," we might be able to hold the Turk at bay while we reformed our military system, imitating that of the Ottoman Empire. (Un- fortunately Curipeschitz does not explain how this might be done, even in the hypothetical situation that he has in mind.) But it is to be feared that before we learn a lesson from the enemy, "all of us shall already be vanquished." 28

With the exception of the Habsburgs, the kings and princes of Germany and Europe refuse to take the Turkish danger seriously. King Ferdinand would like to be "a true shield of the Christian faith," but the other rulers, in their selfishness and jealousy, begrudge him the honor and will not assist him. "The pious Emperor Charles," about whom "many good things have been prophesied," seems willing to lead a general crusade for the defense of Christendom and the reconquest

26 Curipeschitz, B-B3. 27 Ibid, C2-C3. 28 Ibid., D2.



of lands lost to the infidel; but his fellow monarchs and princes will not support his endeavors. The rulers cannot see that Turkish imperialism threatens their own security, undoubtedly because God has blinded them so as to punish their sins. The only hope is that God in His mercy will open their eyes and cause them to take united action against the common enemy.29

For all his pessimism Curipeschitz does not regard the Turks as invincible. On the contrary, he believes that a general crusade could, with the aid of God, evict the Turks from Europe "within three years." If a Christian army were to invade the Balkans, the numerous local Christian population would rise against the Sultan and give every possible aid to the invaders. At the same time the Shah of Persia, an inveterate foe of the Sultan, would probably attack the enemy from the rear.30

Unlike some other writers, Curipeschitz refrains from proposing specific war measures. As a minor official in the Austrian government he may have preferred to leave strategy and high politics to higher authorities.

Far less reticent on these subjects was Ivo Semerin, who wrote his pamphlet toward the end of our period, in 1540. He begins by urging the rulers of Austria and Bavaria to establish a standing army specifically devoted to the struggle against the Turk:

You princes of Austria and Bavaria are more immediately threatened than anyone else [by the danger of a disastrous Turkish invasion]. But you will not be able to withstand unaided the power of the Mahometan and Turkish tyranny. It will therefore be necessary, as soon as at all possible, to request aid from other princes and estates-from the rulers of the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, Hungary, and Den- mark-all of whom also have an interest in these affairs. Then it should be unanimously agreed to [recruit and] maintain one hundred thousand men who would be permanently stationed on the frontiers of Hungary, Carniola, and Styria. They would constantly harass the enemy in the manner that he himself has abundantly been teaching us for many years. There must be careful planning to insure order and discipline among these troops, and to see that they have no lack of wages, foodstuffs, equipment, and other necessities without which they could not survive or remain in existence [as a military force].

Semerin assures the princes that their subjects will gladly give financial support to such a "Christian war effort."

Convinced that sea power will also be important, he calls upon the rulers of Spain, France, the Italian states, and England to organize an international "armada" and to launch a naval offensive against the Ottoman Empire.31

He addresses his appeal for action entirely to the secular rulers, for like most of the pamphleteers he has no confidence in the Papacy. Indeed, he urges the kings and princes of Europe to confiscate the ecclesiastical

29 Ibid., D-[D4]. 30 Ibid., [C4]. 31 Semerin, B-B2.

revenues and use them for the requirements of war. He assures them that they can do so with a clear conscience because these revenues have heretofore been "consumed and wasted at Rome upon pomp and sinful pleasures." Hence the rulers should pay no attention to "any ban of excommunication or interdict that may be used to intimidate your kingdoms and territories, in the peremp- tory, deceitful, and un-Christian manner [of the Pap- acy]." 32

These anti-papal statements raise the tantalizing question of Seremin's own religious affiliation, a subject on which, as mentioned earlier, there appears to be no definite information. He may have been a somewhat unorthodox Lutheran who advocated offensive as well as defensive military action, or a reform-minded Cath- olic, or a person who could not fully identify himself with either party. But it is certain from his pamphlet that he was deeply concerned with the restoration of ecclesiastical unity in Western Christendom. He expresses very definite opinions on the proper method of effecting reunification. In the first place, he strongly criticizes the fanatics in the papal curia who wish to suppress Lutheranism by force. Such a course, he warns, would lead to civil war in Germany, as the Protestants would answer violence with violence. The only beneficiary of such a fratricidal conflict would be the Turk. Exploiting Germany's internal dissensions and weakness, the infidel would occupy all of Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland; then he would invade Germany itself, meeting little resistance because both religious camps would be as exhausted as two fighting-cocks after a match. Having conquered Germany, the Turk would advance into Italy, France, and Spain.

But it is entirely possible to reunite the churches by peaceful means, since all Christians desire to see the schism healed. The Pope and his retinue could do their part by changing their sinful ways; this would make the Protestants much less hostile to Rome. The Em- peror, the princes, and the other German Estates should convoke a national council to effect a compromise in matters of doctrine. There is every reason to think that such a meeting would be a success. The Elector of Saxony and the other "Protesting Estates" are entirely favorable to the idea of reconciliation. In both religious camps there are learned theologians who, if they met in free discussion, could undoubtedly settle the points at issue in accordance with the "tenor and content of Holy Scripture." 33

32 Ibid., B2. 33 Ibid., B2-B3. Similar arguments are advanced by the

anonymous author of Rathschlag vnd vermanung, a moderate Catholic. He exhorts the Christians to repent, desist from wars with one another, and compose their doctrinal differences by means of a general church council. "If we were united and confirmed in the faith, if no one . . . erred in matters of belief, God would answer all our prayers; He would protect us from affliction. [Then] the Turk, ... if he were to attack us, would be vanquished."

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968] 39


We have come to the end of our study of the Tiirkenbiichlein written during the age of Luther and Suleiman the Magnificent. If any generalization can be made about these pamphlets, it is that their authors saw the Turkish peril as an aspect of the moral and spiritual crisis of their age. It was primarily to the sins and disunity of the Christians, especially the Germans, that they attributed the Turkish danger. Their chief aim was to effect repentance, reform, and unity in the Holy Roman Empire and in Christendom as a whole. They were confident that a regenerate Christian Community could, with the help of God, overcome the "hereditary foe."

The Tiirkenbiichlein of our period set the pattern for the many similar pamphlets published during the century and a half that followed. These later tracts added little that was new. As late as the second half of the seventeenth century the authors, if they were Lutherans, continued to echo the views of the "German prophet," sometimes quoting his Tiirkenbichlein at length. They were just as convinced as Luther had been that the Turk was a scourge of God, an agent of the devil, and a harbinger of the impending Last Judgment.34 Simi-

34 T. Wagner, Tiircken-Biichlein ... (Ulm, B. Kiihnen, 1661), pp. 110-113, 128-131, 148-149, 164-169, 174-175, 180-187, 202- 211; Etzliche, Zu fernerem Nachdenken movirte Politische und Historische Discursen . . . (Wittenberg, T. Mevii Erben und E. Schumacher, 1663), G2-H; J. Feinler, Geistliche Tiircken- Glocke .. (Jena; C. Kirchner, 1663), A-C3, G3-H3; Tiircken- biichlein, ... Im Jahr der letzen betriibten Zeit, 1663 (Schwab- ish-Hall, H. Laidig, 1663), pp. 11-31, 42-159; J. Olearius, Tiirckenfall, Vnd . . Wiederstand . . (Leipzig: J. Wittigauen,

larly the sermon-tract written by the famous Catholic preacher, Abraham a Sancta Clara, in response to the second Turkish siege of Vienna (1683) bears a close resemblance to the Catholic Tiirkenbiichlein of the earlier period. Like his many predecessors, Abraham characterizes the Turk as a "tyrannic monster" and a whip of God.35

1664), pp. 1-5, 40-41, 104-105, 154-159, 238-249, 265-267, 272- 275, 298-306. Appended to Olearius's pamphlet is a long, separately paginated compendium of passages from Luther's writings and sayings about the Turk. See also Tiircken-Einfall . . . (n. p., J. R6sslin, 1664), A2-[C2]. In the early eighteenth century the diminution of Turkish power was interpreted by some as a sign of the imminence of the Last Judgment: see "Siegreich Tiirckenfeind" (undoubtedly a pseudonym), Neue und accurate Vorstellung des grossen Ottomannischen Oder Tiirckischen Reichs (Niirnberg, J. Buggel, 1717), pp. 563-569.

5 Abraham a Sancta Clara, Auf, auf Ihr Christen (Wien, 1683), summarized in R. A. Kann, A Study in Austrian In- tellectual History (London, Thames and Hudson, 1960), pp. 54, 63-65, 74-76.

From the second half of the sixteenth century onward, a few Germans and other Europeans seriously studied the language, history, and institutions of the Ottoman Turks. But the knowledge acquired by these men did not significantly undermine the general public's traditional prejudices against the Turk and his Islamic religion. Not until the eighteenth-century Enlighten- ment did a more tolerant attitude, as exemplified; by Lessing, Goethe, and Frederick the Great, become widespread even in intellectual circles. See F. Babinger, "Die tiirkischen Studien in Europa bis zum Auftreten Josef von Hammer-Purgstalls," Die Welt des Islams 7 (1919): pp. 103-129; A. Wohlwill, "Deutschland, der Islam und die Tiirkei," Euphorion 22 (1915): pp. 1-21.


APPENDIX OF ILLUSTRATIVE MATERIAL

I. A CATHOLIC TURKENBUCHLEIN IN TRANSLATION

[Title page:] A Sermon on the Campaign against the Turk, Preached at Mossburg, in the Monastery of St. Castel, by Dr. Matthias Kretz. 1532. [Coat of arms of the bishopric of Freising.] [At bottom of title page:] "Revised and corrected."

[Dedication on leaf (A) :] To the right reverend, most serene, nobly born Prince and Lord, Lord Philip, Count Palatine of the Rhine, Duke of Upper and Lower Bavaria, Bishop of Freising, Administrator of the Monastery at Naumburg (Numburg), my gracious Lord:

Right reverend, most serene, nobly born Prince, My poor prayer and humble service are always at

your command. Gracious Lord, Your Princely Grace recently circulated an edict for the conduct, throughout the bishopric, of processions, fasting, and prayers for His Imperial Majesty and all those who are now setting out on the campaign against the Turk, so that the Al- mighty may grant success and victory (gliick vnd hail). Moreover, Your Princely Grace in person, along with the entire venerable priesthood at Freising, has laud- ably and honorably conducted such processions and divine services; and has done so with such diligence, earnestness, devotion, and efficiency that many have wondered how Your Princely Grace has been able to perform and endure such arduous labors for so long a time. These considerations have moved me to publish the present sermon on the Turkish campaign, which I delivered recently, and to dedicate it to Your Princely Grace. I humbly beg Your Princely Grace graciously to accept this small service; and if I find that it has not been unpleasant to Your Princely Grace, I will gladly perform additional service at Your Princely Grace's command. May Almighty God grant to Your Princely Grace peace, grace, good fortune, enduring health, and a happy reign (regiment), through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Mossburg, 14 September 1532. Your Princely Grace's obedient chaplain,

Matthias Kretz [Leaf A2:] In order to wage a victorious campaign

against the Turk, we must do three things: repent, pray, and fight. First of all we must repent-feel con- trition and sorrow for our sins, desist from them, and reform. The reason why God has sent the Turk down upon our necks is that all estates among us are committing grievous sins; He intends to punish these, using the Turk as a scourge of His wrath. But this reason-the sins-would be canceled through repentance and reform; and with the reason removed, God would cease to be angry and would drop the scourge from His hands. Then the Turk would stand alone and would

become powerless and incapable of further victories (wirt krafftloss vnd sigloss).

Here we must consider two things: first, how greatly sin displeases the Lord; secondly, how greatly repentance pleases Him.

That sin greatly displeases Him, that He violently hates and combats it, is evident from the fact that He has always violently persecuted, punished, and visited it in heaven, in paradise, and on earth. From heaven He evicted the sinful angels after their first, second, or third offenses (im erste, anderen oder dritte augen- plick). From paradise He drove Adam and Eve the moment they had sinned, not permitting them to remain even for five or six hours. On earth God has punished sin with afflictions of many kinds. In the beginning, because of sin, God annihilated all mankind except eight persons, by means of the Deluge (Genesis 7[1- 23]). Thereafter, because of unbridled sin, He destroyed the five cities [Sodom, Gomorrha, and neighboring towns], raining fire and brimstone upon them and submerging them into the Dead Sea (Genesis 19 [12-25). Further, He often punished and killed the Children of Israel, because of their manifold sins, with fire from heaven, or with fiery serpents, or by their enemies, or through earthquakes which swallowed them (many passages in Exodus and Numbers; Deu- teronomy 28 [15-68]). And in Psalm 1081 [6-20, 28-29] God sends thirty curses down upon the sinners who have transgressed His law. In Josue 7 [Joshua 7: 1-26], the entire nation of Israel is vanquished by a few men from the city of Hai, all because a single individual, Achan, was guilty of theft; thus a single sinner brought calamity upon an entire people.

And how can our own warriors possibly be victorious [over the Turk] ? Many of them, I fear, are loot-mongers, blasphemers, drunkards, gamblers, lech- ers, etc. One can only hope that God will pay more attention to the piety of our Emperor and other pious princes who will personally participate in this campaign, than to the mass of wicked, sinful men. I do not doubt that this is a possibility, for God delivered and saved an entire country, Syria, because of one [pious] man, Naaman; all of Egypt because of the pious Joseph; all of Israel because of the pious King Josaphat, etc.

Even the pagan captain (hertzog) Achior had knowledge of such things [sin, divine punishment, repentance, divine deliverance]. He said to Holofernes concerning the Jews:

... as often as beside their own God, they worshipped any other, they were given to spoil, and to the sword, and to reproach. And as often as they were penitent for having revolted from the worship of their God, the God of heaven

1 That is, Psalm 109 in Protestant versions of the Bible.

41


gave them power to resist [their enemies] (Judith 5[18-19]).2

The same point is made in many sayings of the Prophets, through whom God made grim and severe threats against the sinners. Thus in Psalm 7 [13-14]:

Except you will be converted [i.e., repent], he [God] will brandish his sword: he hath bent his bow, and made it ready. And in it he hath prepared the instruments of death ....

And in Jeremias 18 [Jeremiah 18: 7-11] : "I will suddenly speak against a nation, and against a kingdom, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy it." But "if that nation against which I have spoken, shall repent of their evil, I also will repent of my evil that I have thought to do to them." And again:

... I will suddenly speak of a nation and of a kingdom, to build up and plant it. If it shall do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice: I will repent of the good that I have spoken to do unto it. Now therefore tell the men of Juda [Judah], and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying: Thus saith the Lord: Behold I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: let every man of you return from his evil way, and make ye your ways and your doings good, etc.

Let us consider this passage as being addressed to ourselves, for we are worse than were the Jews; hence God is certainly thinking to do us evil by means of the [leaf A3:] Turk. Just as God punished the Jews through the Chaldeans, the Chaldeans through the Medes, the Medes through the Romans, so He is now punishing the Romans [the Germans of the Holy Roman Empire] through the Turk. We shall not be able to defend ourselves against this enemy so long as we remain steeped in sin and refuse to change our ways.

On the other hand, true repentance is so pleasing to God that it causes Him to cease from wrath, drop the scourge, forgive the sins, and make the sinner high and mighty. We have many [Biblical] examples [of the efficacy of repentance]: the people of Nineveh; the kings David, Ahab, Manasses; St. Peter; the thief on the Cross; Matthew; and many others. Without a doubt, therefore, the Lord will give us success and victory in the campaign, provided that beforehand we propitiate Him through repentance and amendment of our lives.

In the second place, if we desire victory over the Turk we must pray, because victory stems not from man but from God. "The horse is prepared for the day of battle: but the Lord giveth safety" (Proverbs 21 [31]). Therefore we must not rely upon our own military power; we must place our trust in God Al- mighty and beseech Him to grant victory.

In this connection we will consider three things: the form, the efficacy, and the needfulness of prayer.

The form need not be uniform; every territorial gov-

2 In rendering Kretz's Scriptural quotations I have followed the text of the Douay (Catholic) version of the Bible.

ernment may ordain some form or manner that will aid the devotion of the common man. [Pope] Innocent III [1198-1216] circulated a mandate requiring that there be one procession every month, with men and women walking separately, and that everyone kneel down during the office of the Holy Mass and pray the 78th Psalm:

O God, the heathens are come into thy inheritance, they have defiled thy holy temple: they have made Jerusalem a place to keep fruit.3

He [Innocent III] also prescribed fasting, so as to make the prayers more pleasing [to God]. He did everything possible for the cause of liberating the Holy Land from the infidels. Pope Calixtus [III, 1455- 1458] 4 prescribed that every day at noontide the church bells should sound a signal to the people, each of whom was then to pray for those who were fighting against the Turk. The form used at present in this locality [the bishopric of Freising] prescribes special prayers on an individual basis; each person may pray what, when, and as God urges him to do. At the very least, each person should daily sigh to God, saying or thinking: "Lord, have mercy upon us; give us grace to amend our lives; preserve us from falling into the hands of that horrible fiend, the Turk."

As for the efficacy of prayer, we know how strong and mighty it is from many sayings and examples in Scripture:

The name of the Lord is a strong tower. (Proverbs 18[10]).

The prayer of him that humbleth himself, shall pierce the clouds. (Ecclesiasticus 35 [21]).

Amen, amen I say to you: if you ask the Father any thing in my name, he will give it you. (John 16[23]).

. the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. Elias was a man passible like unto us: and with prayer he prayed that it might not rain upon the earth, and it rained not for three years and six months. And he prayed again: and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. (James 5[16-18]).

We have also the example of Moses: When Amalec [Amalek] attacked Israel in Raphidim, Moses sent out Josue [Joshua] with some armed men to fight against them, but Moses himself, with Aaron and Hur, went to the top of a hill [to pray]:

And when Moses lifted up his hands, Israel overcame: but if he let them down a little, Amalec overcame. (Exodus 17[11]).

Here you see what prayer could do. David, Asa, Josaphat, the Machabees [Maccabees],

and many others, were miraculously victorious when they prayed, vanquishing large enemy armies with but a few men (see Book of Kings; many passages in Paralipomenon; and Machabees, passim). It is good to see how they prayed and cried to God, along with

3 Psalm 79: 1 in the King James version. 4 See above, p. 9.


A CATHOLIC TURKENBUCHLEIN

their men, when the vast hosts of their enemies invaded them.

We also have a most memorable example from the life of the pious Emperor Theodosius the Elder. (See Historia Ecclesiastica,5 Book 2, Chapter 33 and the narrative by Socrates [Scholasticus] in [Historia Ec- clesiastica] Tripartita, Book 9, Chapter 45.)6 When he was fighting against the usurper Eugenius, and his army was hard pressed, he knelt down and prayed:

Almighty God, thou knowest that I, in the name of Christ thy Son, have gone to war in just vengeance; if this be not so, then take thou vengeance upon me. But if my [leaf (A4):] cause be worthy (and I have put my trust in thee), then aid me with thy just hand, so that the heathen may not say, "Where is their God?"

God heard the prayer; and in the same hour a miracle occurred: a strong, mighty wind blew and diverted the missiles of the enemy from the Emperor, and hurled them against the enemy themselves. Thus the Emperor triumphed, and the usurper groveled at his feet and asked for mercy.

According to Platena [Bartolomeo Platina?], [Pope] Calixtus III, by means of the common prayers that were said everywhere in compliance with his command (as mentioned above), gained from God the great, miraculous victory of the Christians over the Turk at Belgrade [1456].7 After the victory Cassanus [Capi- strano] expressed his gratitude in writing to Calixtus, who had persuaded him to go to war.

Let this suffice concerning the efficacy of prayer, a subject to which no one can really do justice. In short, there is no evil that cannot be driven away with prayer, and there is no good thing that cannot be obtained through a devout prayer.

You have heard our gracious Lord of Freising's edict in regard to prayer, which he has circulated throughout the bishopric. This we should obey with earnestness and devotion, for if we do so, we shall without doubt obtain from God success and victory for those who are now setting out on campaign against the Turk.

I shall now explain why prayer is needful. One should and must pray in order to become more clearly aware that God is angry and ready to punish us, as He undoubtedly is today. In all such cases it is His will and attitude that one should diligently implore Him to avert the punishment and to desist from His wrath. If one fails to do this, His wrath will become even more terrible. Therefore He says in Psalm 49 [15] :8 " ... call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver

5 It is not clear to which of the various ecclesiastical histories Kretz is here referring.

6 The passage from Socrates Scholasticus cited by Kretz will be found, in English translation, in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, ed. by P. Schaff, H. Wace, and Others (14 v., Grand Rapids, Mich., W. B. Eerdmans [1952-1957]) 2: pp. 135-136.

7See above, pp. 6, 9. 8 Psalm 50: 15 in Protestant Bibles.

thee, and thou shalt glorify me." And note that in Ezechiel 13 [Ezekiel 13: 5] [God upbraids the Israelites for having neglected to pray for His aid]. There He says:

You have not gone up to face the enemy, nor have you set up a wall for the house of Israel, to stand in battle in the day of the Lord.

And in Chapter 22 [Ezekiel 22: 30-31] [God says concerning the Israelites]:

... I sought among them for a man that might set up a hedge, and stand in the gap before me in favour of the land, that I might not destroy it, and I found none. And I poured out my indignation upon them, in the fire of my wrath I consumed them: I have rendered their way upon their own head, saith the Lord God.

So much for the needfulness of prayer: God wills that we pray to Him; therefore let everyone fervently call upon Him-young and old, clergy and laity, as well as the warrior in the field. Thus St. Augustine exhorted Count Boniface to take up the sword and at the same time shout prayers into the ears of the Lord. The clergy should be especially devout and diligent [in praying], as this is the special obligation of their office; it is for this purpose that they receive their prebends. If they do so [i.e., pray diligently], no one will be able to say that they are useless people, or that there is no need of them. The priests in the church can accomplish more than the warrior in the field; of this we have a clear indication in the fact that Moses achieved more by praying on the hill than did Josue [Joshua] by the sword in the field.

To lazy people who do not like to pray, one should preach a sermon concerning the terrible fury and cruelty of the Turks, explaining how inhumanly and lamentably they would treat us if we should fall into their hands; if they [the lazy people] heard these things, they would, in my opinion, become more inclined to pray.

The third and last thing that one must do in order to overcome the Turk is to fight with sword in hand. In this connection three things are necessary: obedience, the right attitude, and humility. Obedience means that everyone should fight not on his own initiative but under the banner of the [Holy] Roman Emperor, the supreme authority, to whom the sword has been entrusted by God. On the basis of the same divine ordinance, no one has the right on his own authority to slay a Turk, any more than a Jew: after all, the Turk is slightly better than the Jew in matters of religious belief.9 Concerning the obedient it is written (Proverbs 21 [28]): "... an obedient man shall speak of victory."

The attitude of the Christian fighters against the Turk should be as follows. They should fight not in

9 This is an unusual opinion, which I have not found in any other Tiirkenbiichlein published during the first half of the sixteenth century.-Translator.

43 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


order to gain great honor and glory, nor to acquire lands and possessions, nor out of anger and a desire for vengeance. Such motives are Turkish, not Christian, and one cannot vanquish Turks with Turks. [Leaf B:] Our warriors should fight in order to preserve and maintain, defend and protect, the name and honor of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of His holy faith, which the Turk, its hereditary foe, is seeking to extirpate. This should be their chief and foremost motive; but they should also be moved by the poverty, spiritual peril, and misery of those of our brethren and fellow Christians who now live under the Turk and are oppressed and persecuted by him; for he treats them not like human beings but like livestock (vich); their lot is far worse than that of the Jews among us (Chris- tians].10 The Christian warriors should, out of com- passion and mercy, desire to help these our fellow Christians, to rescue and deliver them from the unbearable tyranny; so that the name of God, and of His Son Jesus Christ may, in accordance with the 56th Psalm [verses 8-12],11 be acknowledged, propagated, praised, honored, and worshiped in good peace and without hindrance, far and wide throughout the world. This view is just and simple; this is what it means to fight under the banner of Christ. If the Christian warrior emerges victorious in such an endeavor, he will rightly be called a laudable Christian knight; if he dies in battle, he is no doubt a blessed martyr and attains the crown of eternal salvation.

Thirdly, there must be humility. The princes and soldiers should not be proud and arrogant; they should not defiantly and boastfully rely upon their own might and battle plans, but should put their hearts, hopes, and

destiny [datum, a misprint for fatum?] in God Al-

mighty, who is the source of all victory, all success, all strength and might; and they should call upon Him for aid and succor. This lesson is [also] taught by the common proverb, "Pride goes before a fall" (iibermut thet nye gut). We have an excellent example in Judges 20 [15-25], where we read that the Children of Israel were twice beaten by the Benjaminites, even though God Himself had commanded them to fight; but they boasted of their own strength and numbers, and that was their undoing. Humility is also taught us by the victorious king and warrior David in Psalm 43 [3-8],12 where he says:

Thy hand [O God] destroyed the Gentiles, and thou plantedst them: thou didst afflict the people and cast them out.

For they [our fathers] got not the possession of the land by their own sword: neither did their own arms save them.

But thy right hand and thy arm, and the light of thy countenance: because thou wast pleased with them.

Thou art thyself my king and my God, who commandest the saving of Jacob.

10 This comparison is grossly erroneous. See above, Chapter III, p. 21, n. 11.

11 In the King James version, Psalm 57: 8-11. 2 In Protestant Bibles, Psalm 44: 2-7.

Through thee we will push down our enemies with the horn: and through thy name we will despise them that rise up against us.

For I will not trust in my bow: neither shall my sword save me.

But thou hast saved us from them that afflict us: and hast put them to shame that hate us.

See also Psalm 59 [12-14] 13:

. . .wilt not thou, O God, go out with our armies ? Give us help from trouble, for vain is the salvation of

man. Through God we shall do mightily: and he shall bring

to nothing them that afflict us.

These and similar psalms and verses our princes and captains should learn well, and they should pray frequently, as I pointed out previously in my discussion of prayer. But this is not to discount the need for military preparations; we should arm as strongly as possible with horses, men, weapons, etc.; failure to do so would be to tempt the patience of God. But we should put our trust not in our armaments but in the aid of God.

To summarize: If the three essentials-repentance, prayer, and combat-are properly performed, there is no danger that our campaign will fail, as God will no doubt give success and victory.

In order that the Christian princes and warriors may have greater fervor, courage, will, and desire to campaign against the Turk, I will add an epilogue concerning those Christian princes and lords who in earlier times went on crusades to the Holy Land and against the Turk. The story began in the year 802, when Emperor Charles, the first of this name and the first of the German emperors, who is called the Great and the Saint, together with [leaf B2:] a number of kings, dukes, counts, knights, and a very large army, went to the Holy Land, conquered Jerusalem and all Palestine and delivered it from the hands of the infidel Saracens. But not very long thereafter the infidels once again seized the Holy Land and held it for about one hundred years. Consequently, in the year 1094, under Pope Urban II, the pious Christians rallied and once again invaded their [the infidels'] lands in force. When the army was mustered and counted at the city of Nicea, it numbered six hundred thousand foot soldiers and one hundred thousand horsemen. And God gave them such success that they captured Cilicia, Antioch, and other places, and finally the holy city of Jerusalem itself in the year 1099 on the fifteenth day of July, that is, on the day of the Dispersion of the Apostles-the feast com- memorating that earlier day when the primitive Church was driven from Jerusalem. The supreme commander of the Christian army was the most serene prince, highly renowned throughout the world, Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine, also known as [Godfrey] of Bouillon; also participating in the campaign were many notable

13 In the King James version, Psalm 60: 10-11.


A CATHOLIC TURKENB CHLEIN

princes, counts, and barons, [among them] Eustace and Baldwin, brothers of Godfrey; Anselm of Ribemont; Bohemond, Duke of Apulia [i.e., Bohemond, Prince of Taranto, son of Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia]; Hugh [of Vermandois], brother of King Philip [I] of France; Robert, Count of Flanders; Stephen, Count of Blois; Isoard, Count of Die; William, Count of Forez; etc. Eight days after the capture of the city of Jerusalem, the above-mentioned Duke Godfrey was elected and named the first King of Jerusalem by the captains and rank-and-file of the army; but he refused to wear a crown, saying that it was not fitting for a poor sinner (ein sundiges menschlein) to put a golden crown on his head in the city in which the Saviour of the world, the eternal King Christ, had worn a crown of thorns moistened with His holy blood. In the very next year [1100] the noble hero died, and seven other kings reigned after him. All eight kings, taken together, ruled mightily at Jerusalem over a period of eighty-eight years and nineteen days, and all of them were honorably buried there. By the year 1187, however, the Christ- ians [in the Holy Land] had become numerically weak and divided into factions, and were receiving no help from us [Europeans]. Consequently the Saracens were able to reconquer [the Holy Land] which (be it lamented to God!) they have held until the present day. Nonetheless the pious Christians [of Europe] soon be- stirred themselves; in the very next year, 1188, a large army of foot soldiers and horsemen from many lands assembled, took the Cross-the sign of victory, and moved against the domains of the heathens, one part of the army traveling by land, the other by sea. These warriors did as much damage to the enemy as they could. Soon after, another great wave of devotion seized the Christian people; an innumerable host, with armaments so mighty as to defy description (mit vnseg- licher riistung), banded together and invaded the lands held by the infidels. This expedition was commanded by Emperor Frederick the First, called Barbarossa, along with his son Henry, King Philip [Augustus] of France, and King Richard [the Lion-Hearted] of Eng- land. These kings were followed by all their nobility- dukes, counts, barons, knights, etc., as well as by many archbishops and bishops. In summary, no person of note in military affairs wished to stay behind, as the popular demand for action was unimaginably strong (ainer solchen bewegung des volck gedenckt man nit). And quite possibly great things would have been accomplished if the above-mentioned Emperor Frederick had not died en route. Aeneas Silvius [Piccolomini] writes that [Frederick] died in a river in which he wished to bathe; thus the high and mighty Emperor provides an example of the futility of human endeavors when God does not give strength.

In subsequent years other kings and princes, for example certain rulers of Bavaria and Austria, along with the noble knighthood of Germany, performed many

honorable and laudable exploits in the lands of the Saracens, which for the sake of brevity I will not narrate. If these men, out of love for Christ, invaded the lands of the Turk, what ought we to do now that the Turk has invaded our own lands? If they traveled far across the sea, what should we do now that the Turk is at our own doorstep? Verily, if we hesitate to take action, [leaf B3:] then there is not a single Christian blood vessel left in us!

The devout Emperor Frederick the Third, ancestor of our Emperor Charles, was also animated by a very good, Christian hostility to the Turk. In the year 1471 he assembled a vast imperial diet at Regensburg; there he spoke to the Christian princes concerning the many lands of which the Turk, in twenty years' time, had de- prived Christendom; he exhorted them to arm for a war of resistance. Even if we had no other example to inspire us than the brave resistance that some of the kings of Hungary have offered to the Turk, no one among us should take a pusillanimous attitude toward the present Turkish campaign. Sigismund, a king of Hungary [1387-1437], was so pious that he should in justice have been canonized; he waged ten wars against the Turk and was victorious every time. Another king of Hungary, Ladislaus [Ulaszlo I, 1440-1444], during the pontificate of Eugenius IV mightily routed the Turkish Emperor Murad [II], with the result that the Turkish ruler desisted from his fury and sued for peace.

Again, in the year 1456 the great Machumetes [Mehmed II], Murad's son, marched against Belgrade with 150,000 warriors; but John Hunyadi, governor of the kingdom of Hungary, with a few crusaders inspired by the preaching and sincere exhortations of the pious monk Capistrano, repulsed the Turk and made him retreat in flight. Some say that more than 40,000 Turks perished on that occasion, and that the Turks left behind all their cannon and other equipment. Em- peror Machumetes himself was wounded and was so dispirited that he said, "Bring me poison-I would rather die than return home in such disgrace." The Christians won this great victory not by human means but through a divine miracle, for the Turks fled even though no one pursued them. True, they said that they were being chased by such large numbers of armed men that they dared not look behind them, but the pursuers were not men but angels; it was the hand of God alone that struck terror into the Turks. In order to give thanks to God, Pope Calixtus III moved the feast of the Transfiguration of Christ to the day of St. Sixtus, for it was on that day that the great victory was won. Thereafter, as is well known, King Mathias [Corvinus] of Hungary, Hunyadi's son, also vanquished the Turks. He attacked the kingdom of Bosnia and conquered the fortress of Jajce, where he drove the aforementioned Emperor Mahomet [Mehmed II] to ignominious flight. He also won much glory by conquering another strong and well-garrisoned Turkish

45 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


fortress, a place named Sabatz [Sabac]. These were not the only great wars he waged against the Turk; but for the sake of brevity I must now come to a close.

If individual kings have been able to offer such effective resistance to the Turk and do him so much damage, what is likely to happen now that our two supreme heads, Pope Clement [VII] and Emperor Charles, together with his brother Ferdinand, King of the Romans and of Hungary and Bohemia, and the entire German nation are cooperating so loyally and addressing themselves in such a Christian manner to the campaign against the Turk? No doubt God Al- mighty will give them success and victory, enabling them to accomplish great things, attain eternal glory, and win the crown of eternal salvation. Amen.

Spes mea tu JESV es. gracia non merita. M.K.

[Colophon:] Printed in the princely town of Lands- hut by Johann Weyssenburger, [whose shop is located] near [the church of] St. Jodok, next to the weyssen Schossgatteren.l4 There he will await his customers.

II. A LUTHERAN TURKENBUCHLEIN IN TRANSLATION

[Title page:] Booklet on the Turk: How Preachers and Laymen Should Conduct Themselves if the Turk Were to Invade Germany. A Christian and necessary lesson by Johannes Brenz. Wittenberg, 1537. [Picture of a turbaned Turk.] [Leaf A2:] A Christian and Necessary Lesson on How Preachers and Laymen Should Conduct Themselves if the Turk Were to Invade Germany.

Holy Scripture (Daniel 7 [1-27]) indicates, in the vision of the four wild beasts, that there are to be only four imperial monarchies on earth before the end of the world; during the fourth, the Antichrist will be revealed and the Last Judgment will come.

The first monarchy was the empire of the Chaldeans and Assyrians; after its collapse came the second empire, that of the Medes and Persians, as written in Daniel 5 [1-31]. After the Persians there arose the third empire, that of Alexander the Great and the Greeks. Thereafter appeared the fourth empire, that of the Romans, which is to be the last, and will be overtaken by the Last Judgment. From this it is clear that the authority of the Roman Empire stems from God; it is a divinely appointed order which will endure until the end of the world. Consequently, even if the Emperor were personally a complete pagan, all his subjects would still owe him obedience in those things in which an emperor, by virtue of being an emperor, has authority, and which are not contrary to the will of God.

14The precise meaning of the name weyssen Schossgatteren has not yet been ascertained by modern scholars. Apparently it denoted a square or commons near the church of St. Jodok. I am indebted for this information to Herrn Verkehrsdirektor Max Ammer in Landshut, Bavaria.

Now that there is a general outcry about the Turk's being on the march, with the intention of overrunning all Germany-what are the preachers and other God- fearing people to do? Should they preach armed resistance to the Turk, or should they throw open the gates of the city, as Jeremiah did at Jerusalem? (When the Babylonian Emperor besieged Jerusalem, Jeremiah within the city preached that it should surrender, else it would be laid waste [Jeremiah 27: 12-17].)

Answer: Germany is full of wickedness; every kind of roguery prevails among both rulers and subjects. At the same time, the Gospel has been revealed to Germany, but it is being reviled and vilified as "heresy." Therefore, if God is to follow His wont, a very severe punishment is in store for Germany. For it has always been God's wont, when a land was filled with wickedness, [leaf A3:] to have the Gospel preached there [as a warning and corrective]; then, if the Gospel accomplished nothing and was rejected, He inflicted His punishment. Thus before the Flood, when the world was wicked, He sent Noah, who was treated with contempt along with his Gospel. Before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent the pious Lot. Before the calamity of Egypt, He sent Moses and Aaron. Before the first destruction of Jerusalem, He sent the Prophets. Before the second, He sent Christ and the Apostles. And after our dear Lord Christ, when Italy was to be laid waste and punished, He sent Augustine, Ambrose, and other pious teachers, all of whom preached to the world about its sins and misdoings, admonishing men to change their ways, since otherwise the wrath of God would descend upon them, etc. I could cite other such historical examples, but for the sake of brevity I will omit them; what I have said will suffice for the pious and God-fearing, while even a thousand horrifying true stories will accomplish nothing with the wicked and stiff-necked.

Well, my dearly beloved, pious Christians, now that sin and vice, enormous evil and wrongdoing are no

longer considered to be a disgrace in Germany, and the Gospel has been revealed for the benefit of the God-fearing, it behooves an upright preacher to ad- monish his people to amend their lives and turn from their horrible sins. All the signs indicate, [the preacher should tell his people], that a divine punishment is at hand but can still be turned from us through amendment of life. This we know from [the Book of] Jonah [3: 4-10]. Jonah preached that the city of Nineveh was to be razed after forty days, but when the King and his people changed their ways, God became gracious to them and did not destroy the city. And in Ezekiel 22 [30] God Himself complains that He would gladly have ceased from anger if He had found even one man to make a hedge and stand in the gap before Him for the land, to prevent Him from destroying it.

The preachers are also obligated earnestly to exhort the Emperor and princes [of Germany] to perform


A LUTHERAN TURKENBUCHLEIN

their appointed task-to resist the Turk with the sword. The rulers should not worry about the possibility that the Turk's might may be greater than their own; instead, they should obey God's command and precept, confidently believing that He will help them to combat the murderous Turk. And the subjects are duty-bound to assist their lords, thus safeguarding themselves, their wives, and their children. Such obedience is a good, holy work; if anyone perish while performing it, he should not doubt that he dies in obedience to God; and if otherwise he truly believes in Christ, [leaf (A4) :] he will certainly attain eternal bliss. It is a true, Christian consolation, which can fill with joy the hearts of all pious warriors, both commanders and ordinary soldiers, to consider that they have God with them and are fighting in obedience to His command.

Why This Lesson Is Necessary

Every civil authority owes it to God to maintain law and order, to protect the land and the people from wrongful violence and murder, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 13 [3-4]. Now, the Turk is attacking Ger- many even though he has no right or provocation to do so; his assault is like that of a murderer. Just as the government is obligated to punish thieves and murderers, or to take preventive action as soon as the aggressive intentions of such persons become known, so the government is obligated to resist the Turk, an undisguised brigand and murderer. Every government and its servants should take comfort in the knowledge that it is God's command to resist wrongful violence and murder.

That they are nothing but undisguised criminals the Turk themselves prove, not only by their deeds but by their law, for their Mahomet commanded them to commit perpetual aggression, to conquer lands and peoples. They are under the illusion that God promised to Mahomet sovereignty and power over the earth; they allege that only through the Mahometan empire will God fulfill His promise to Abraham, namely to make him lord of all the world. Since the Turks boast that this is their law, it is fitting for all civil authorities to combat them as avowed criminals.

Furthermore, the Turks prove their criminality by horrible actions, for they invade other kingdoms without cause or provocation; fifty (funfftzig) years ago,1 for

example, they invaded the Austrian lands, even though the Germans had given them no cause to do so. When the Turks win a victory they conduct themselves not as honorable warriors but as the worst miscreants on earth. After their conquest of Constantinople the Turkish tyrant [Mehmed II] had the wives and chil-

1 Brenz's chronological reference is not clear. It may be that funfftzig is a misprint for funff (five), in which case the reference would be to 1532, the year of Suleiman's second Austrian campaign. Austria in the sixteenth century was, of course, regarded as a German territory.

dren of the [Byzantine] Emperor and princes brought to a banquet, where he violated them and then had them chopped to pieces while the banquet was still in progress. Such doings, far from being rare among the Turks, are their customary way of celebrating a military triumph. [Leaf B:] Even if they had cause to wage war, they would still be regarded as criminals, since they do not obey the commonly accepted laws [rules] of restraint in warfare (die weil sie kein kriegsrecht oder Land recht vnd zucht halten). After all, war should be waged with moderation, so as not to violate natural law (which is also divine law). Warriors who will not observe natural law should be regarded as murderers, for this is what they are. Let everyone consider what a terrible disgrace it is to permit women and children to be subjected to such shame-I will not relate the vile deeds committed by the diabolical [Turkish] people, involving all kinds of unchastity. At Rhodes there was an honorable woman who had two sons; when she saw that the city was about to be conquered by the Turks, she stabbed the two boys to death, so that they would not fall into Turkish hands; then she mounted the ramparts and fought bravely until she herself perished. I will not say that this mother acted rightly, but let everyone consider what reason there must be for a mother to perpetrate such a terrible deed against her own flesh and blood. She must have known how the Turks abuse the young [Christian captives]. Therefore all honorable men, to preserve their families from shame, should risk body and life in resisting the murderous Turk.

It is for this reason, true and constant in the eyes of God, that every Christian may be certain of doing a good work when fighting against the Turk-the rulers as leaders, the people as subjects required by God to obey the government. In addition to this reason there are many other highly important things in which a Christian may take comfort when he goes to war against the Turk.

In the first place, God through the Prophet Daniel clearly proclaims that the Turk is His enemy. Since we know for certain that this is so, all Christians are duty-bound to do everything they can to avoid coming under the Turkish regime. They should in no way accept such a regime; they should neither submit to it nor join it. Anyone who accepts such a regime makes himself a party to all the blasphemy and sins which pervade the entire Turkish system. It is not without reason that God has warned us; it is His will that we should most seriously consider His warning. Every Christian is duty-bound to beware of this empire and not to acquiesce in it by word or deed, for it was erected by the devil to extinguish the name of Christ.

[Leaf B2:] It is highly necessary to consider this proposition [the duty of all possible resistance to Turkish aggression], so that we may learn what a horrible sin it is to accept the Turk's regime. We

47 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


should look closely at the Book of Daniel, in which God indicates what He thinks of this empire, namely, that the Mahometan religion and regime are unadulterated blasphemy and criminality. [Mahometanism] is blasphemy because it rejects Christ and the Gospel. [The regime] is criminal not only in its war practices, but also in its other aspects, for it keeps no moral discipline and fails to punish the most horrible vices and unchastity. A participant in such terrible sins is anyone who willingly submits to the Turk and does not act in such a way as to show his heartfelt disapproval. Since we are duty-bound to show our unwillingness to accept the Turkish Empire, everyone should understand that he does a very good and Christian deed in resisting any Turkish attempt to conquer Germany. For it is his duty to resist and defend himself, as commanded by God. (So wir nu schuldig sind, vns zuer- zeigen, das wir nicht willigen jnn das Tiirckische Reich, so mag ein jeder verstehen, das er seer wol vnd Christlich thut, das er solchs erzeigt, an diesem ort [Germany?], da er sich zu weren vnd zu verfechten schuldig ist, aus Gottes gebot.) I cannot imagine how such weighty, important considerations could fail to inspire a pious Christian with courage to risk life and property against Turkish tyranny and murder.

In the second place, Christians should also take comfort in the knowledge that the Turkish Empire is God's enemy, and that God will not allow it to annihilate the Christians. Although God has caused this empire to arise in these last times as the most severe of punishments, nonetheless He will not allow the Christians to succumb completely, and Mahomet will not rule alone in the whole world. Since Christ is the Lord, it necessarily follows that He will always have followers to whom His Gospel is preached, whose hearts He inspires and rules. Therefore those who fight against the Turk should be confident in the knowledge that, although God sometimes gives victory to the Turk, their fighting will not be in vain, but will serve to check the Turk's advance, so that he will not become master of all the world.

Although the Mahometans have enjoyed great victories, God has nonetheless strongly resisted them; every now and then He has sent kings and princes who have beaten them back. Thus for more than a hundred years our laudable [German] emperors of old waged praiseworthy and Christian wars at Jeru- salem to weaken the Saracens, and succeeded in checking them, delaying the growth of their power in Asia. These Christian wars are highly praised by St. Bernard, who rightly calls them sanctam et tutam militiam.2 So

2This reference to the medieval crusades as "holy wars" makes it appear, at least on the surface, that Brenz was closer to the Catholic crusading ideology than to Luther's view of war against the Turk. But it should be noted that Brenz praises the crusades not for having been waged in the name of the Cross but for having checked the territorial expansion of the Moslems. Apparently he regarded the crusades as having been

also to John Hunyadi, and then to his son King Mathias of Hungary, as well as to the laudable King Alfonso in Calabria, God gave great, glorious victories over the Turks; thus they were [leaf B3:] checked and kept away from our own lands until the present age. The praiseworthy deeds and examples of the emperors and kings of old, and of the many princes who participated in the campaigns, should inspire and move the present Emperor, kings, princes, and subjects to preserve and protect the land and the people, as their ancestors did before them. [The Christians should be all the more willing to wage such vigorous war] because they have heard that God has commanded and ordered them to do so. [Such a vigorous effort has heretofore been lacking], and the reason for this lack is well known: unfortunately there are many who incite the kings and princes to shed innocent [Protestant] blood in Ger- many [instead of concentrating upon the Turkish foe], and publicly advocate such a course in their writings. May God protect us from such men and thwart their Cain's counsels!

In the third place, the Prophet Daniel himself com- forts the Christians by saying that the horn which represents Mahomet's empire will uproot only three horns [of the fourth beast] [Daniel 7: 8-11, 19-27]; from this it follows with certainty that the Turk will not conquer the entire [Holy] Roman Empire, and it also follows that some people will resist [the Turk] and win victories. For if we [Christians] had not been destined to win victories, the Turk's advance would not have been checked, and he would long ago have proceeded to conquer the entire Roman Empire. After all, many years ago he tried in earnest to overrun Italy and Hungary [but failed to do so]. All this accords with Daniel, who says that the horn will make war upon the saints, thus indicating that there will be armed resistance to the Turk. If the latter is to wage war without ceasing [as Daniel says], then it will not be without effort and sword blows that he will conquer one territory after another.

With these and other arguments that can be derived

essentially defensive wars; he believed that the medieval Ger- man emperors were ultimately defending their own lands and subjects by attacking the aggressive Moslems in Asia, thus pre- venting them, for a long time, from becoming strong enough to invade Europe. Brenz's view of what constituted defensive warfare was thus much broader than Luther's. At the same time, it would seem that Brenz's theological attitude to war against Moslems was not fundamentally different from the Reformer's. Brenz too justified such armed violence in terms of the preservation of lives, property, and the legitimate civil authorities; nowhere in his pamphlet does he exhort the Christian warriors to defend the faith by the sword. He believed, of course, that Christian military victories might have the effect of checking the spread of Islamic doctrines, thus con- tributing to the fulfillment of God's plan to preserve the Christian faith and Church-a view fully shared by Luther. The point is that Brenz, like the Protestant authors in general, does not represent the defense of the Cross as a motive that should actuate the Christian warriors.


A LUHERAN TURKENBUCHLEIN

from Holy Scripture, all Christian rulers and subjects should comfort themselves. In God's name they should valiantly defend themselves with all their might against the Turks as against avowed criminals, and call upon God for aid, since He has commanded such defensive action. Endeavors undertaken in obedience to God, and with trust in Him, are to be valued far more highly than the most elaborate monastic works, for which there is no divine precept.

Against this some would adduce the case of Jeremiah, who at Jerusalem urged the King to surrender. The answer is that if this had not been a special case, it would not have required a new divine revelation. The [King of the] Jews had a [general] mandate to resist, as does any ruler whose cause is just. [Leaf (B4) :] But since God intended to do something special, He sent a prophet with a special message, proclaiming that it was His will to raze the city but also to return the captives to that place after seventy years [Jeremiah 25: 9-11; 30: 8-10, 17-22]. Thus He indicated to the pious the one way in which they would be preserved: first they should surrender; later they would come home again. Anyone [today] who would cite the case of Jeremiah, should first have assurance from God that the Turk would return us to our lands and that our polity and divine services would be re-established in our territories. As long as they have no revelation to that effect, they should not forbid armed resistance.

Furthermore, Jeremiah had a special mandate to forbid resistance, and thus had God's Word on his side; anyone who would now forbid resistance must first demonstrate that he too has a special mandate. If he cannot do so, one must follow the rule and adhere to the Word of God, which commands the civil authority to combat unjust violence. In such highly important matters one cannot act without reference to the Word of God. It will not do to disregard the [general] mandate and act in accordance with [special] examples. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son, for he had a special mandate to do so; but anyone who has not a like mandate should disregard this example and adhere to the general commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." One should strictly distinguish between examples and commandments, just as in jurisprudence there is a common saying, "Periculosum est exemplis indicare." Con- sequently, as long as God has not revealed to us that He will return us to our homeland if we surrender, we are duty-bound to protect the land and the people.

There are some who vociferously object that it behooves a Christian to suffer and not to resist; this is the contention of the Anabaptists and of many others. My reply is, Are you well enough acquainted with other Scriptural passages to be able to judge in what respects Christ forbade or did not forbid vengeance? There is grave danger of misinterpretation in those passages which sound like prohibitions of all kinds of vengeance and armed resistance. For this reason I

will say a little more on the subject. [It is true that] Christ says (Matthew 5 [38-39] ):

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whoso- ever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn him the other also.

This and other, similar passages have been very illogi- cally interpreted by many. He who does not know of what it is that the Gospel speaks, namely that Christian holiness is a matter of the heart, and is not at odds with external, temporal order-such a person cannot correctly understand these passages. Just as no monk has ever properly interpreted them, so the Anabaptists [leaf C:] with their sham piety, their false, hypocritical patience, make a mockery of these passages.

You must realize that I am not imposing purely human interpretations upon these passages, but basing my view entirely upon clear and definite Scripture. To understand these passages correctly, you must compare them with other passages which clearly state that Christ certainly did not cancel the temporal authority and its right to punish and protect. (See St. Paul, Romans 13 [3-4] and other passages.) It follows that the above passages should not and cannot be interpreted as negating the civil government's office, right to exercise justice, punitive authority, police power, right to wage war, and similar functions. The rule of non occides should not be interpreted as being directed against civil authority but applies only to privata vindicta; Christ commands that no one without civil authority should take vengeance out of self-will. Christ said these things because the Apostles were under the delusion, with which the Jews still console themselves today, that the Messiah would be a temporal king, and that they must overthrow by violence the government and power of all heathen kings, thus making themselves the masters. Christ often inveighed against this error so as to demonstrate that His kingdom would not be a temporal, outward kingdom; hence [the Apostles] were not to exercise vengeance or resistance, since they were not in political authority or in any other office to which it behooves to wield the sword.

Thus the above passages prohibit private vengeance only; they do not prohibit the rulers from exercising their office; on the contrary, they confirm the rulers in their office. For as St. Paul says, the vengeance inflicted by the civil power is the work of God [Romans 13: 4]. The Gospel, of course, does not prohibit the work of God but confirms and praises it. On the other hand, private vengeance outside of public office infringes upon God's office-this is what Christ will not tolerate.

This is the true, Christian, and certain meaning of these sayings of Christ, and should be remembered for the guidance of the conscience in many things

49 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


pertaining to external life in general, but especially to the government.

From this lesson, I hope, it is abundantly clear to you that rulers and subjects do truly good works and serve God when they fight against the Turk, protecting the land and the people from unjust violence. Take comfort in this lesson!

There are many reliable signs that the Turk will rise no higher, and that he will soon fall. If the [final] emergency is indeed at hand, [leaf C2:] let us manfully share in the struggle against these "Red Jews." (This is what Methodius 3 called them, the reason being that Mahomet claimed to be of the true seed of Abraham and boasted of being the heir of God's promise to Abraham. [To prove this contentiton] he adopted many Jewish ceremonies. [But in reality] they [the Mahometans] are Red Jews-that is, bloodhounds and murderers who persecute the [true] seed of Abraham [i.e., the Christians, the new Israel]).

Methodius also wrote that Alexander [the Great] had driven them [the Red Jews] into the seclusion of the Caspian [Caucasus] Mountains, but that [eventually] a fox would show them a hole by which they might escape from this confinement. In this way Methodius indicated which people he had in mind [when he spoke of the "Red Jews"]. He meant the Turks, who for a long time lived behind the walls of the Caspian Mountains and who, though they often tried to escape from this confinement, were driven back by the great Alexander and his descendants. But at last the fox, that is Mahomet, appeared; then the Turks broke out and through God's wrath overran the world.

But may God be gracious to us, for the sake of His holy name, through our Lord Jesus Christ; May He overthrow the Turk and save us. Amen.

The Da pacem Domine in German, along with [Some] Fine Collects To Be Used as Prayers for Temporal and Eternal Peace

Verley vns friden gnediglich, HErr Gott zu vnsern zeiten, Es ist doch ja kein ander nicht, der fir vns kiindte streiten, denn du vnser Gott alleine. (Graciously give us peace, Lord God, in our time; for thou, our God, art the only one who can protect us from our enemies.)

3 St. Methodius of Olympus in Lycia, a "third-century ecclesiastical author; d. probably a martyr at Chalcis, Greece, ca. 300" (Newz Catholic Encyc. 9: p. 742). For some reason Brenz and other sixteenth-century authors believed that Methodius had foretold the events of Islamic and Ottoman history. See, for example, the dialogue Der Nollhart by the Swiss poet Pamphilus Gengenbach in Pamphilus Gengenbach, ed. K. Goedeke (Han- nover, Riimpler, 1856), pp. 77-116, esp. pp. 92, 101-106. Accord- ing to Goedeke (ibid., p. 607, n. 3), these prophecies concerning the Turks may actually have stemmed from a thirteenth-century soothsayer also named Methodius.

A Prayer Gott gib frid jnn deinem lande, Gliick vnd heil zu allem stande. (Give peace, O God, to [this] thy land; [Give us] thy grace and blessing in all things.)

[A Collect for Peace] O God, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels,

and all just works do proceed; Give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give; that our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we, being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness; through the merits of Jesus Christ Our Saviour. Amen.4

[Leaf C3:] Another Prayer against the Turk

Lord God, heavenly Father, we thank thee for the peace and for all the blessings which thou hast given to us, thy children, in this poor earthly life. Above all, [we thank thee] for having given us thy precious Word, and for having sent upright teachers to give us the right understanding of the faith. We pray thee, through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord, to turn thy just and mighty wrath from us; to regard not our and our fathers' manifold sins and ingratitude; to think not of our transgressions of thy divine commandments; but to open the shrine of thine unbounded mercy, of thy divine and paternal heart; to be and remain not a stern judge, but our most gracious and dearly beloved Father. [We also beseech thee] graciously to preserve us from the monstrous designs of the Turk and our other loathsome enemies [i.e., the Papists]; so that we may retain thy holy Word with unshakable faith, in peace and unity, now and forevermore; that we may act, live, and die in obedience to thy divine will, and finally enter thy divine kingdom, our true fatherland. These things we ask of thee, our God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.

[Another Collect for Peace]

O God, who art the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom standeth our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom; Defend us thy humble servants in all assaults of our enemies; that we, surely trusting in thy defence, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.5

The End.

Printed at Wittenberg by Georg Rhaw [Rauh], 1537.

4This English version of the traditional collect is from "The Order for Daily Evening Prayer" in The Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America (New York, Oxford University Press, 1952), p. 31.

5 This English version is from "The Order for Daily Morning Prayer" in the Protestant Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, p. 17. Brenz's German version, closely similar in most respects, has a somewhat different conclusion, which may be translated


A LUTHERAN MODEL SERMION

III. A LUTHERAN MODEL SERMON

(Excerpt from Veit Dietrich, How Preachers Should Exhort the People to Repentance and Earnest Prayer against the Turk [Nuremberg, 1542].)

[Leaf a2:] As everyone knows, for a number of years within living memory the Turk has been coming nearer and nearer to our homeland. With every passing year he has been doing more and more damage to Christendom. Worst of all, last summer he conquered Hungary, so that it is no longer a Hungary but a Turkey (das es nit mehr das vngerlandt, sonder ein Tiirckey ist), since the Turk has it firmly under control and possesses it all. There is no doubt that we [Chris- tians] have brought these misfortunes upon ourselves with our sins; otherwise the godless enemy would not have so much success against us. Therefore it is most urgent for us [Christians in Germany] to consider the fate of our [Hungarian] neighbors and let it serve as a warning. They had deserved such a punishment because of their sins, and their calamity should teach us a lesson. First of all, we must amend our lives and turn to true, Christian repentance; for if we persist in our sins and refuse to change, we and our children must surely expect from God the same wrath and punishment.

In the second place, we must pray in earnest, calling upon God to forgive our sins and turn His just punishment from us. God Himself teaches us to do so, for He says: " . .. call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me" [Psalm 50: 15]. And Christ says (John 16 [23]): "Whatso- ever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." This command and promise of our God we should take to heart, and pray for aid in all afflictions, especially at this time against the Turk. For he is an enemy who not only robs us of money and possessions, wife and child, and maltreats people in the

as follows: "through Jesus Christ, thy Son, our Lord, who reigneth and ruleth with thee in the eternity of the Holy Spirit, now and forevermore. Amen."

most horrible manner, but whose whole purpose and intention is to root out the name of Christ and put his own devil, Mahomet, in His place. If faith in Christ were extinguished; if preaching, sacraments, and the true worship of God were lost; then eternal salvation would also be lost, and nothing would be more certain than damnation and hellfire. We have a special and urgent need to pray God to combat such a foe, to protect us from him, to prevent his taking the divine Word from us, and to preserve us from becoming Turks. God, for His own name's sake, will hear such prayers if we say them in an earnest spirit. As already mentioned, such prayers must go hand in hand with true repentance and reform. We must stop being so wanton and wicked; we must no longer be so avaricious, so intent upon providing for ourselves alone, upon becoming rich. We must be merciful to the poor and kind to everyone; we must walk honestly and avoid all scandalous conduct, especially blasphemy, gluttony, drunkenness, and all other licentiousness. For it is because of such sins that the wrath of God descends upon His disobedient children. As Paul says [Romans 13: 8-14?], we must not despise the Gospel but hear it in such a manner as to put away all that which is forbidden by God [leaf a3] and diligently do that which is commanded by Him. Such reform of our lives must take place if the chastisement is to cease and if we are to receive grace.

Therefore let everyone closely observe his own life, to see whether in every respect he has been conducting himself as a good Christian should. If he finds that he has not done so, let him turn and, even at this late hour, begin to reform (vnnd heb noch an sich zu bessern); let him pray for grace and hope that God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, will forgive his sins and graciously withhold punishment.

In particular, now that all the Empire is mightily armed against the Turkish foe, we are obligated to pray for all those who are about to participate in the campaign, beseeching God graciously to give them victory, to check the horrible enemy, and to grant peace to His poor Christendom. Amen. Say a paternoster.

51 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL AIDS

APPONYI, SANDOR. 1903-1927. Hungarica: Ungarn betreffende, im Auslande gedruckte Biicher und Flugschriften (3 v., Miinchen, Rosenthal).

FISCHER, ALBERT F. W. 1878. Kirchenlieder-Lexicon (Gotha, Perthes).

GOLLNER, CARL. 1961. Turcica: Die europiiischen Tiirken- drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Bucure?ti, Editura Academiei R. P. R.).

HAMMER-PURGSTALL, JOSEPH VON. 1827-1835. "Verzeichniss der in Europa (ausser Constantinopel) erschienenen, osman- ische Geschichte betreffenden Werke," in Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches (10 v., Pest, Hartleben) 10: pp. 57-336.

HOHENEMSER, PAUL. 1925. Flugschriftensammlung Gustav Freytag (Frankfurt, Frankfurter Societitsdruckerei).

KERTBENY, K. M. 1880. Ungarn betreffende deutsche Erstlings- Drucke, 1454-1600 (Budapest, Universitats-Buchdruckerei).

K6HLER, W. 1904. Bibliographia Brentiana. Bibliographisches Verzeichnis der gedruckten und ungedruckten Schriften und Briefe des Reformators Johannes Brenz. (Berlin, Schwetsch- ke).

SCHOTTENLOHER, KARL. 1933-1966. Bibliographie zur deutschen Geschichte im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung, 1517-1585 (7 v. Leipzig and Stuttgart, Hiersemann).

STURMINGER, WALTER. 1955. Bibliographie und Ikonographie der beiden Tiirkenbelagerungen Wiens 1529 und 1683 (Graz, Bohlaus Nachf.).

WACKERNAGEL, PHILIPP. 1855. Bibliographie zur Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes im XVI. Jahrhundert (Frank- furt a. M., Heyder & Zimmer).

II. OTHER REFERENCE WORKS

Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (56 v., Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot, 1875-1912).

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana (70 v., Madrid, Espasa Calpe [1907?-1930]).

Encyclopaedia of Islam, edited by M. T. Houtsma and Others (4 v. and Supplement, Leiden, Brill, 1913-1938).

- New edition, ed. by H. A. R. Gibb and Others (Leiden, Brill, 1954 proceeding).

Neue deutsche Biographie (Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, 1953 proceeding).

New Catholic Encyclopedia (15 v., New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967).

III. PRIMARY SOURCES

In listing the respective depositories, the following abbrevi- ations have been used:

DSB: Deutsche Staatsbibliothek, Berlin. ONB: Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek. HUL: Harvard University Library. BSB: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Miinchen.

Names of libraries less frequently used have not been abbreviated.

A. Main Sources: Tiirkenbiichlein

of the Years 1522-1543

AGRICOLA, GEORG. Oration: anred vnd vermanung zu den grossmechtigsten, durchleuchtigsten, auch durchleuchtigen, vnd diirchleuchten, hochgebornen Fiirsten vnd herren, Herrn Ferdinandum zu Vngern, Bihem, Dalmatien vnd Croatien kinig, Infanth in Hispanien, Ertzhertzog zu Osterreich, Hert- zog zu Burgundien, Marckgraff zu Merrhen vf Laussnitz etc. Auch allen Churfiirsten vnd Fiirsten des heyligen

Rimischen Reichs, Georgij Agricole, von kriegssriistung vnd heerzug wider den Tiircken, durch Laurentium Werman auss dem Latein inss Teiitsch gebracht. 1531. Gedruckt zu Niiremberg durch Friderich Peypus.

4to. 18 leaves. G6llner, No. 408. HUL. Anzeigung ze eroberen die Tiircky, vn erlisung der Christenheit.

Auch wie die Insel Mahumeta, durch die ordensliit dess kiingreichs Wolfarie erobert ist. Daby alle stind Tiitscher nation sillen ein vnderwysung ndmen. [1523.]

4to. 16 leaves. Woodcut on the title page and four additional woodcuts in the text. First line of the title in red letters. G6llner, No. 194. BSB.

Ausszug aines Brieffs, wie ainer, so in der Tiirckey wonhafft, seinem Freiind in dise Land geschriben, vnnd angezaigt, was das Tiirckisch Regiment vnd wesen sey, Vnd wie Er es mit den Lannden, so er erobert, zuhalten pfligt, kurtzlich in Teiitsche Sprach gebracht, nutzlich diser zeyt zuwissen. [Colophon on leaf b2] Datum Adernopel, am Ersten tag des Mertzen. Im 1526. Jar.

4to. 6 leaves. HUL. [BRENTEL, JORG.] Ain Trostspruch wider den Tiircken. Man

thut yetzt allenthalben sagen, Ach Gott wer nur der Tiirck erschlagen. Erkenn dich selbs, ware buss wiirck, Gott sendt dir hilff wider den Tiirck. Zur hilff ist er allzeyt berait, Wie diss Biichlin feyn kurz anzaigt. Vnghrechtigkait, Siind, Laster, Schand, Treibt den Tiirken zu vns inns land. [Colo- phon on leaf (A4)] "J. B." N. p., n. n., n. d. (ca. 1543?).

4to. 4 leaves. ONB. BRENZ, JOHANNES. Wie sich Prediger vnd Leien halten sollen,

so der Tiirck das Deudsche Land vberfallen wiirde. Christ- liche vnd nottiirfftige vnterrichtung, durch Johan. Brentz. [Medallion depicting a turbaned Turk's head.] Wittemberg. M. D. XXXVII. [Colophon on leaf C3] Gedruckt zu Wit- temberg durch Georgen Rhaw. M. D. XXXVII (1537).

4to. 12 leaves. W. K6hler, No. 95. ONB. CANTZLER, WOLFFGANG. See Kanzler.

CRONBERG, HARTMUTH VON. See Kronberg. CURIPESCHITZ, BENEDICT. Ein Disputation oder Gesprech

zwayer Stalbuben, So mit Kiinigklicher Maye. Botschafft, bey dem Tiirckischen Keyser zu Constantinopel gewesen, Dieweil sy allda jn jhrer beherbergung vo dem Tiircken verspert, beschehen, Darinen alle gewonheiten, Brauch, Glaub, Ordnung vnnd Lands art der Tiirckey gemelt wirdt. Von Herrn Benedicten Curipeschitz vonn Obernburg obgemelter Botschaft Lateinischen Oratorn (wie er von gedachten Stal- buben alda heimlichen gehiirt) beschribe, gdtz nutzlich zu lesen. [Engraving on title page: members of a Christian embassy make obeisance to a sultan or other Turkish dig- nitary.] [Colophon on leaf (D4)] Datum Constantinopolis. N. p., n. n., ca. 1531.

4to. 16 leaves. ONB. DIETRICH, VEIT. Der xx. Psalm Dauids, Wie man fiir vnser

Kriegssvolck recht betten vnd sie sich Christlich wider den Tiircken schicken, vnd glickselig kriegen sollen. Aussgelegt durch Vitum Dietrich, zu Niirnberg Prediger. 1542. Gedriickt zu Niirnberg, durch Johan vom Berg, vnd Vlrich Neuber.

4to. 38 leaves. Niirnberger Stadtbibliothek. -- Wie man das volck zur Buss, vnd ernstlichem gebet wider

den Tiircken auff der Cantzel vermanen sol. Sambt einer vnterricht vom gebet, Vnd einer kurtzen ausslenng [Ausle- gung] des LXXIX. Psalmen. Durch Vitum Dietrich, zu Nuremberg Prediger. 1542. [Colophon on leaf i4] Gedruckt, vnd vollendet zu Niirmberg, durch Johann vom Berg vnd Vlrich Neuber. Anno 1542. die Junij 7.

4to. 36 leaves. (Dedicated to Martin Pfintzing, supreme commander of the Nuremberg contingent during the 1542 imperial campaign against the Turks.) HUL; ONB.

52

VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]

Ein kleglich ansuchen des ausschuss der v. Nider Ostrreichischen lande belangend die grosse jtzige fahr des Tiircken halben. Wittemberg. Anno. M. D. XL. [Colophon on leaf (D4)] Gedruckt zu Wittemberg, durch Joseph Klug. 1540.

4to. 16 leaves. Preface by Justus Jonas on leaves A2-[A4]. ONB.

Ein kurtze Christliche Ermanung, wie man inn disen geferlich- sten zeitten, sich zu Gott keren, vnd dem Tiircken obsigen mige, einem jeden Christlichen Regenten vnd Kriegsman niitzlich zulesen. Anno XLII. N. p., n. n., 1542.

4to. 11 leaves. HUL. Ein Sendbrieff darjnn angetzeigt wirt vermeinte vrsach warumb

der Tiirck widder die Hungern triumphirt vn obgelegen hab. MD xxvij. [Colophon on leaf (C4) Gedruckt zu Dressden durch Wolffgang Stockel.] N. p., n. n., 1527.

4to. 12 leaves. Hohenemser, No. 3329. Stadtbibliothek Frankfurt am Main.

Erinnerung der verschulten plagen, des Teutschlands, sampt ainer getrewen ermanung zu Christenlicher bekerung, vnnd schuldiger hilff, wider des Tiircken grausam fiirnemen vnnd erschrockenlichen angriff, in dem Ertzhertzogtumb Osterreich gethun. N. p., n. n., ca. 1529.

4to. 4 leaves. ONB. Ermanung an das Gemeyn Christenlich Volck, vmb Gnad vnnd

Siegk widder den Tiircken zu pitten, vnnd zu vnterhaltung des Christenlichen Heers jr milte handtreichung gutwillig zuthun. Anno MDXLII. N. p., n. n., 1542.

4to. 6 leaves. ONB. GREFF, JOACHIM. Vermanung an gantze Deudsche Nation, wid-

der den Tiirckischen Tyrannen, Sampt einem Gebet zu Gott, Vmb errettunge von demselben Erbfeinde. Sonderlich aber vnd fiirnemlich, dem Churfiirsten zu Brandenburg etc. Dedicirt vnd zugeschrieben. Durch Joachim Greff von Zwickaw. Auch ein sch6ner Latinischer Hymnus, zu beten vmb verzeihung vnser Missethat, zu Gott. Anno. 1541. Wittemberg. [Colo- phon on leaf (C6)] Gedruckt zu Wittemberg, durch Veit Creutzer. 1541.

4to. 14 leaves. HUL. HASELBERG, JOHANN. Des Tiirckische Kaysers Heerzug, wie

er von Constantinopel Mit aller riistung, zu Ross vnd Fuss, zu wasser vnd Land etc. gen Kriechische Weyssenburg kum- men, vnd fiirter, Fur die koniglichen stat Ofen yn Vngern, vnnd Wien in Osterreich gezoge, die belegert vf gestiirmt etc. mit angehenckter ermanung, der grausamen tyranney des Tiircken, wyder Christliche Nation etc. [Woodcut on the title page with captions, "Karolus Rminischer Kayser Ertz- hertzog vonn Osterreich etc. Beschyrmer d' Christenhait" and "Suldan Soleyma Tiirckischer Kayser ain erbfeind des Chrischliche (sic) glaubens etc."] Both monarchs are on horseback, leading their respective armies. [Colophon on leaf B2] Vollendt durch Johan Haselberg etc. Gedruckt zu Niirmberg durch Christoffel Zell. Anno. 1530.

4to. 6 leaves. G6llner, No. 379. ONB. HEYDEN, SEBALD. Wie man sich in allerlay nitten, des Tiircken,

Pestilentz, Theiirung, etc. tristen, den glauben stercken, vnd Christliche gedult erlangen soll, Auss siben spriichen heyliger scrifft kiirtzlich angezeygt. Durch Sebaldum Heyden. [Quo- tation.] MDxxxi [1531]. [Colophon on leaf (d6)] Gedriickt zu Niiremberg durch Friderich Peypus.

4to. 18 leaves. G6llner, No. 414. ONB. JONAS, JUSTUS. Das siebend Capitel Danielis, von des Tiircken

Gottes lesterung vnd schrecklicher morderey, mit vnterricht Justi Jonae. Wittemberg. [Colophon on leaf (H4)] Gedruckt zu Wittemberg, durch Hans Lufft [ca. 1530].

4to. 32 leaves. ONB. - Preface to Ein kleglich ansuchen (q. v.).

KANZLER, WOLFGANG. Auss was vrsache Gott dem Tiircken verhengt das er die Christenheit so starck vberzeucht vnd mit blutdiirstiger hand, ermordt verfogt vnd hin wegk fiurt. Darneben ein hertzliche ermanung an all Christlich gemiit,

Got den almechtigen mit ernst vmb hilff zu bitten vnd an su riuffen. [Quotation.] Gemacht durch Wolffgang Cantsler allen Christen zu gut vnd nutz. [Quotation.] N. p., n. n., ca. 1532.

4to. 8 leaves. ONB. KNAUST, HEINRICH. Von geringe herkommen, schentlichem

leben, schmehlichem ende, des Tiirckischen Abgots Mahomets, vn seiner verdammlichen vnd Gotsslesterlichen Leer, allen frommen Christen zu disen geferlichen zeiten, zur sterckung vnd trost im glauben an Jesum Christum, durch M. Hainricum Cnustinum, zusamenn gebracht. [Woodcut: Christian captive, hands bound behind his back, in the presence of a sultan of ferocious mien, who is sitting on a throne, scepter in hand.] Anno. M. D. XXXXII. N. p., n. n., 1542.

4to. 22 leaves. (Dedicated to Elector Joachim II of Brandenburg, supreme commander of the 1542 imperial campaign in Hungary.) ONB.

KRETZ, MATTHIAS. Ein sermon vo dem Turcken zug. Durch. D. Mathiam Krecz zii Mosspurg, in sant Castelsstifft gepredigt. 1532. [Coat of arms of the bishopric of Freising.] [Colophon on leaf B3] Gedruckt in der Firstlichen Stat Landsshut, durch Johann Weyssenburger, bey sand Jobst zu dem weyssen Schossgatteren, do wil er der kaufleiit warten.

4to. 7 leaves. G6llner, No. 441. BSB. KRONBERG, HARTMUT VON. "Eyn sendbrieff an Babst Adrianum:

daryn mit Christlichem warhafftigen grund angetzeigt wurd eyn sicherer heylsamer weg zu ausreuttung aller ketzereyen: vnd zu heylsamer rettung gantzer Christenheyt von des Turcken tyranney. Wittemberg 1523," in Die Schriften Hartmuths von Cronberg, edited by Eduard Kiick (Halle a. S., Niemeyer, 1899), pp. 117-120.

LUTHER, MARTIN. "Heerpredigt wider den Tiirken" (1529), ed. F. Cohrs and A. Goetze, in D. Martin Luthers Werke; kritische Gesammtausgabe (Weimar, Bohlau, 1883 sqq.) 30, Part II: pp. 149-197.

- "Vermahnung zum Gebet wider den Tiirken" (1541), ed. F. Cohrs and 0. Brenner, in Luthers Werke (Weimar ed.) 51: pp. 577-625.

- "Vom Kriege wider die Tiirken" (1529), ed. F. Cohrs and A. Goetze, in Luthers Werke (Weimar ed.) 30, Part II: pp. 82-148.

[NAUSEA, FRIEDRICH]. Ein gemeyn Exempler Predig sambt etlichen gotseligen gebeten zu Gott vmb erlangung des Syges, fur die Predicanten zu den Kriegssleiiten, so jme krieg seindt. Wider die vnglaubigen feindt, zu Latein vi Teiitsch, durch den hochwirdigen in Gott vatter vnd herren, herrn Friderichen Bischouen zu Wienn etc. gestellt (n. p., n. n., ca. 1542).

8vo. 32 leaves. ONB. OSIANDER, ANDREAS. Vnterricht vnd vermanung, wie man

wider den Tiircken peten vnd streyten soll. Auff ansuchung etlicher guter Herrn vnd Freunde. An die jhenigen gestelt, bey denen der Tiirck schon angriff en, vnd schaden gethon, vnd sie desselben noch alle tag gewertig sein miissen. Andreas Osiander. 1542.

4to. 12 leaves. Gollner, No. 743. ONB. Rathschlag vnd vermanung an alle kiinig, Fiirsten vnd herren

der gantzen Christenheit vnnd sonderlich an den aller grossmechtigsten, vniiberwintlichsten keyser Carolum. Mit welcher gestalt dem schedlichen feindt der Christenheit (nemlich dem Tiircken) mit Gottes hilff, widerstandt beschehen micht. Anno M. D. XXXVI. Im Herbstmonat (n. p., n. n., 1536).

4to. 4 leaves. G6llner, No. 584. HUL. SEMERIN, Ivo. Ain Ernstliche, Christenliche vnnd trewe

warnung, an die hochsten Heiipter vnd alle Oberkaiten Teut- scher Nation, wider den aller grewlichsten blutdurstigen Christlicher Kirche Ertzfeinde den Tiircken, Vnnd ettlich seine merkliche Syg so er gehapt, vnd noch noch wie (laider) zubesorgen in kiirtz, wa der sach nit mit zeitigem rhat begegnet, habe wurde, belangende. Beschriben durch Iuonem Semerin. M. D. XL. [1540]. [Colophon on leaf B3]

BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

54 BOHNSTEDT: THE INFIDEL SCOURGE OF GOD

Getruckt zu Augspurg, durch Philipp Vlhart. Herrschaft Limpurg, Speckfeld 4to. 7 leaves. G6llner, No. 673. ONB. Gn. Befelch zum Truck geben.

[Tiirck zum Burgel, Bernhardin.] Das der Tiirck, ein erbfeind Zeit, 1663. [Colophon on p. 16 aller Christen, weder traw noch glauben halte, klare bewey- Hall, bei Hans-Reinhard Laidi sung aus den geschichten bissher inn kurtzen jaren von jme Tiircken-Einfall, Oder Kurtzer, j begangen. Vnsere kriegsleut haben hierin wol zu bedencken, dem grausamen Einfalle Gogs u wie die Tiircken nach der Schlacht, Eroberungen vnnd Ab- quotation.] Gedruckt bey Jol ziigen, allererst anfahen mer zu tyrannisiren vber die, so sich Wiirt. bestellten Buchdrucker. jnen ergeben, dan wider die jnen widerstand thun. Darumb TURCKENFEIND, SIEGREICH. Neuo ist besser, dapffer wider sie kriegen, daf sich in ein vertrag grossen Ottomannischen Oder begebe. 1542 (n. p., n. n.). contents, including prophecies c

4to. 6 leaves. ONB. Empire.] Niirnberg, Verlegts Tuiircken biechlin. Ain Nutzlich Gesprech oder Vnderrede et- 1717. HUL.

licher personen, Zu besserung Christlicher ordenung vf lebens, WAGNER, TOBIAS. Tiircken-Biich gedichtet. In die schweren leiiff diser vnser zeyt dienstlich.- tion.] M: DC. LXI. Zu Vlt Das Tiircken biechlin bin ich frey genant Vnd beger den Balthasar Kiihnen, bestellten B Christen werden bekant Domit Sie sich zu besserung keren WOLDER, SIMON. Tiirckischer Vnd dester bas des Tiircken erweren. [Colophon on leaf Bedencken Kayserl. May. Fei (E6)] Geendet im Mayen als man zalt, Nach Christi geburt, digster Geddchtnis, Anno 1558 Tausent Fiinffhundert zwaintzig vnnd zway jar (n. p., n. n., ohne sonderbare Beschwernis de 1522). der Gross-Tiirke, der Christet

4to. 22 leaves. Gollner, No. 174. HUL; ONB. Wasser und Land zu iiberziehe windlichen Gottes, zu iiberwin

B. Later Tiirkenbiichlein Jetzo aufs neue iibersehen, und Jahr Christi 1664 (n. p., n. n.).

Das Tiirckische Cabinet Vnd die Haubt-Maximen der Otto- manischen Pforte, Oder die Grund-Veste, Auff welchen eine C. arios Editions of so mdchtige Monarchia, mit einer so brutalen vnd harten arss t s Regierung nicht allein so vil hunderte von Jahren her ist against the Turks and gestanden, sondern immerdar zu genommen hat, niemalen of the Chris vorhin auff solche Weise aussgegeben. Gedruckt im Jahr, Anno 1684 (n. p., n. n.). Anno 1684 (n. p., n. n.). Das ist ein anschlag eyns zugs z

[Leaves (K2)-M] Vnmassgeblicher Vorschlag, wie in die 3der den Christenlichen kurtzer Zeit; ja zweyen Feldziigen, zum ldngsten die Tiircken n. d. [1518]). auss Europa zu vertreiben wiiren. HUL. 4to. 4 leaves. Gllner, No.

FEINLER, JOHANNES. Geistliche Tiircken-Glocke. [List of con- Ain Aschlag wie man dem T tents.] Zu Jehna, In Verlegung Christian Kirchners, Buch- nd durch gantz chstenhait o handlers in Leipzig, Druckts Johannes Nisius, Anno: Va on beschweriss nit ordnung DeVs LargIarls nobIs paCeM! [1663]. HUL. Ye new edruckt 1522 (n. p., n

ERYTHROPILUS, RUPERTUS. Weckglock, darinnen die schlaffende 4to. 8 leaves Kertbeny, No. Teutschen wider die wachende Tiircken auffgeweckt werden. Ein sonder vnd furnem bedencken Durch Rupertum Erythropilum, Predigern in Hannover zum der sich itzt mit Gewalt erfiir H. Creutz. Gedruckt zu Frankfurt am Mayn, durch Johann fiiglicher weiss bekreigen vnd Spies, Im Jahr M. D. XCV. [1595.] HUL. eynen liebhaber Gtliches wort

Etzliche, Zu fernerem Nachdenken movirte Politische und (n. p., n. n., ca. 1522). Historische Discursen, Was von des Tyrannischen Tiirckens 4to. 7 leaves. G11ner, No. ietzigem Einbruch und weiteren Progressen in kiinfftigen Anschlag wider die grausamen v Jahren, muthmasslich zu halten sey? Nechst Darstellung Tirgken, durch wolchen bissht seiner Stats-Ration zu kriegen, und wie demselbigen fiiglichst sampt Land vnd leiten bescha zuwiderstehen? Wittenberg, In Verlegung D. Tob. Mevii D. XXXXII. [Woodcut: Eurc Erben und Elert Schumachers; Gedruckt bey Matthias the Turk.] (n. p., n. n., 1542). Henckeln, Im Jahr 1663. HUL. 4to. 6 leaves. G6llner, No. 7

OLEARIUS, JOHANN GoTTFRIED. Tiirckenfall und Wiederstana D. Johannis Olearii. Leipzig Anno 1663. [Second title page] D. Other Literature o Tiirckenfall, Vnd seiner Grossmdchtigen Tyrannischen Grau- samkeit Entgegen gesetzter uniiberwindlicher Wiederstand, Zu Abschrifft ains Bryeffs von Cons Erweckung warer Busse, Kindliches Vertrauens, Hertzer- zu vernemen hat, wolcher gl quickenden Trosts, und unabldssigen Gebets aus Gottes Wort Priester vnd Doctores hat las gezeiget, Vnd nechst beygefiigtem Tiircken-Gebet mit denck- das sye bestendiger weyss bek wiirdigen Geschichten und Exempeln erkldret von Johanne tiget haben, das Christlich ge. Oleario, D., F. S. M. Ober-Hoffprediger und Kirchen-Rath. Machometisch falsch sey, Vnd Leipzig, Gedruckt und verlegt von Joh. Wittigauen. Anno nen seinnd in den selbigen St 1664. HUL. jm Jar Da man zalt. etc. MD)

Tiircken-biichlein, Darinnen: I. Ein Christlich: Obrigkeitliches Gedruckt zu Augspurg durch Kirchen-Mandat; etliche Buss-Gebet; ausserlesene Psalmen Ain Prophecey vnd Weissagung Davids, vnd Gesdnger; auch Lehr- und Trostreiche ausgezeich- Johansen von Burgundi, der v nete Biblische Capitel; Sambt II. Beigefiigtem, aus Gottes Jars 1395. wie es in d' zeit Wort, D. Luthers und anderer bewiihrten Lehrer Schrifften, auf Kinig Karol in Hyspanien gezogenen kurtzen Bericht vom Tiircken, begriffen ist. Fiir Kayser der fiunfft etc. wiillic die Christliche Pfarr-Gemeinden der Libl. Evangelischen teyl geschehen vnd noch ges

[TRANS. AMER. PHIL. SOC.

\er Lini, also gestellt, und aus Im Jahr, der letzten betriibten

0] Gedruckt zu Schwdbischen gen, Anno 1663. HUL. jedoch scheinbarer Bericht von nd Magogs. [List of contents; hann Weyrich Risslin, Fiirst.

Anno 1664. HUL. e und accurate Vorstellung des Tiirckischen Reichs. [List of of the collapse of the Ottoman Johann Leonhard Buggel. An.

lein. [List of contents; quota- m gedruckt vnd verlegt durch uchdruckern [1661]. HUL.

Untergang, Oder Rithliches rdinando dem Ersten, glorwiir-

iibergeben: Welcher Gestalt, er Oberkeiten und Unterthanen, nheit Erb- und Erz-Feind, zu en, und mit Hiilfe des uniiber- den ware? [List of contents.] an vielen Orten gebessert. Im HUL.

le Project for a Crusade All Other Enemies

stian Faith

wider die Tiirckenn, Vnnd alle Glawbenn seyndt (n. p., n. n.,

108. ONB. iircken widerstand thun mag, geleiche biirde getragen wiirde, der miintz gar schin zu lesen. 1. n.). . 179. i, Wie man wider den Turcken, gibt, Ziehen, vnnd denselbigen dempffen kan. Gestellet durch s, vnd der gantzen Christenheit

111. DSB. nd blutdiirstigen Tyranney des er vil Christen bluts vergossen, digt vnd verderbt worden. M. opean soldiers marching against

62. ONB.

n the Turkish Theme

stantinopel, Auss wilchem man estalt der Gross Tiirck seine ssen vmbringen, auss vrsachen, ant, vnd mit vrsachen bekreff- satz vnd glaub warhafftig, das was fur grosse xaichen erschi-

tellen des geiibten Todtschlags. XXXIX. [Colophon on (A4)] Melchior Ramminger. ONB.

7 von den Vier erben Hertzog onn dem Tiircken gefangen des jrs regiments ergeen solte biss , so nun regierender Rdmischer he wunderliche Prophecey zum chen soll, ist kurtzer zeyt zu

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Louen in Brabant durch glaubhafftig personen in einer alten mauren erfunden, vnd durch ein heydnischen mayster, Astol- gant genannt, welcher des grossen Tiircken Astronomus gewest, angezeygt vnd beschriben wordenn, diss zu kiinfftig zeyt beriirende etc. (n. p., n. n., ca. 1530). ONB.

BRENZ, JOHANNES. Zwo vnd zwaintzig Predig den Tiirckischen krieg, vnd ander zufallend vnfall betreffend, sampt aim bericht, wess sich darinn zuhalten, durch Johan Brentzen gepredigt. Mit einer vorrhed D. Martin Luthers. Newlich durch Se- bastian Coccyum verteiitscht. [Colophon on leaf (s8)] Gedruckt zu Nurmberg durch Friderich Peypus. 1538. 8vo. (W. Kohler, No. 101.) ONB.

["Captivus Septemcastrensis."] Chronica vnnd beschreibung der Tiirckey mit yhrem begriff, ynnhalt, prouincien, vilckern, ankunfft, kriege, reysen, glauben, religionen, gesatzen, sytten, geperde, weis, regimente, friimkeyt, vnnd bossheiten, von eim Sibenbiirger xxij. jar darinn gefangen gelegen yn Latein beschriben, verteiitscht Mit eyner schinen Vorrhed. Zehen oder aylff Nation vnd Secten der Christenheyt. [Colophon on leaf 03] Gedruckt zu Niirmberg durch Fridericum Peypus [1530]. 4to. ONB.

Die historischen Volkslieder der Deutschen vom 13. bis 16. Jahrhundert, edited by Rochus von Liliencron (5 v., Leipzig, Vogel, 1865-1869).

Ein hiibsch new Lied vnd Ermanung, an Keyser, Kiinig, Fiirsten vnd Herren, auch alle Oberkeit, das Euangeliu ansunemen, vnd alle vneynigkeyt vnder einander faren lassen, damit dem grewlichen Tyrannen dem Tiircken widerstanden werde, Im thon, wie das Pauier Lied. [Medallion with picture of a turbaned Turk's head and the quotation in capital letters: Dy sterck Gottes ist aller menschen sigel. 1530.1

Pamphlet is incomplete, consisting of 3 leaves in 4to, [a]-a3. DSB.

England, Church of. A Fourme to be vsed in Common prayer, euery Sunday, Wednesday, and Fryday, through the whole Realme: To excite and stirre all godly people to pray vnto God for the preseruation of those Christians and their Countreys, that are nowe inuaded by the Turke in Hungary or elswhere. Set foorth by the most Reuerende father in God Mathewe Archbyshop of Canterbury, by the aucthoritie of the Queenes Maiestie. [Colophon on leaf B3] Imprinted at London in Powles Church yarde by Richard Jugge and John Cawood, Printers to the Queenes Maiestie. [1566.] HUL.

ERASMUS, DESIDERIUS. The Colloquies of Erasmus, translated by Craig R. Thompson (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1965).

[GENGENBACH, PAMPHILUS.] Pamphilus Gengenbach, edited by Karl Goedeke (Hannover, Rumpler, 1856.)

GIovIO, PAOLO. Vrsprung des Turkischen Reichs, bis auff den itzigen Solyman, durch D. Paulum Jouium, Bischoff Nucerin, an Keiserliche Maiestat, Carolum V. jnn Welscher sprach geschrieben, er nach aus dem Latin, F. Bassianatis, Ver- deutschet durch Justum Jonam. Von der Turcken riistung, vnd kriechs bestellung etc. vleissiger bericht (n. p., n. n., 1537). [Leaves A2-C3] Preface by Philip Melanchthon. 4to. ONB.

GRiNPECK, JOSEPH. Ein Dyalogus Doctor Joseph Griienpeck von Burckhausen: w des Tiirckischen Kayser Astronimus Disputiert mit des Egiptischen Soldans obristem radte, ainem verlaugneten Christen von dem glauben der Christen vt von dem glauben des Machumeten. Nachmals von de vierund- zweintzigsten jar, wie es mit de wassern, kriegen, Pestilentz, hunger, vnd andern erschrecklichen plagen gen sol. An den Grossmechtigiste fiirsten herren herren Karolen Riimischen Kayser (n. p., n. n., ca. 1522). ONB.

Hie nach volgend Vier neuwe kligliche, vnd zu Got riffende Gesang oder Lieder, wider den blutdurstigen Erbfeind vnd verderber des Christenlichen bluts, den Tiirgken, yetzunder inn diser gefihrlichen zeyt, niitzlich zu Lesen vnd zu singen,

Gemayner Christenhayt zu Ermanung, Warnung, Tr6stung vnnd Besserung, zusamen Gedruckt vnnd Aussgangen. M. D. XXXXII. [Colophon on leaf (C2)] Gedruckt su Augspurg bey Hainrich Stayner. 4to. Title page has woodcut depicting Turkish atrocities. ONB.

LEUNCLAVIUS, JOHANNES (Lowenklau, Hans). Neuwe Chron- ica Tiirckischer nation, von Tiircken selbs beschrieben [list of contents]. 1595. Gedruckt zu Frankfurt am Mayn, bey Andreo Wechels seligen Erben, nemlich, Claudide Marne vnd Johann Aubri. Princeton University Library.

LUTHER, MARTIN. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Ge- sammtausgabe (Weimar, Bohlau, 1883 proceeding).

SACHS, HANS. Die Dichtungen des Hans Sachs zur Geschichte der Stadt Wien, edited by Heinrich Kabdebo (Wien, Faesy & Frick, 1878).

Tiircken-Noth, und Tiircken-Spott; In dreyerley Kupffer- Gemiihlden nachdencklich vorgestellet. Deren Das Erste, die Betriibnus des Tiirckischen Sultans, wegen dess schmertzlichen Verlusts, so viler Vestungen, Stiidt und Liinder; Das Andere, das Tiirckische Schweiss-Bad, oder seine dariiber aussgestan- dene Angst; Das Dritte, die Abgittische und Bluthiindische Procession der Tiircken nach Medina in sich begrifft. Ge- druckt im Jahr 1687 (n. p., n. n.). HUL.

Wider den Tiircken. Ein diemiietig bekhintniis vor Gott vnserer siinden, vnd gebet vmb verzeyhung derselben, vnd abwendung verdienter straff, sunderlich des Tiirckens tyranney. In d' weyss, Auss tieffer not zusinngen. Item der CXV. Psalm, Nit vns nit vns 0 ewiger Herr. Etc. (n. p., n.n.,n.d.). ONB.

Zwey newe Lieder vnd anriiffung zu Gott, vmb hilff wider den Tiircken Das erst mag gesungen werden, wie der CXIX. Psalm, Es seind doch selig alle die. Vnd das ander als der CXXX. Psalm, Auss tieffer not schrey ich zu dir. Oder, als der XI. XII. oder XIII. Psalm. Mit sampt eynem Gebet, vmb gnad zu bitten. [Colophon on (A4)] Gedruckt zu Niirmberg durch Georg Wachter [n. d.] ONB.

IV. SECONDARY SOURCES

(This list is restricted to works cited in the footnotes.)

A. Books and Monographs

BABINGER, FRANZ. 1953. Mehmed der Eroberer und seine Zeit: Weltenstiirmer einer Zeitenwende (Munchen, Bruck- mann).

- 1959. Zwei baierische Tiirkenbiichlein (1542) und ihr Verfasser. Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philo- sophisch-Historische Klasse. Sitzungsberichte, 1959, No. 4 (Miichen, by the Bay. Akad. der Wissensch.)

BAINTON, ROLAND H. 1956. The Reformation of the Six- teenth Century (Boston, Beacon Press).

CHEW, S. C. 1937. The Crescent and the Rose: Islam in England during the Renaissance (New York, Oxford Uni- versity Press).

COLES, PAUL. 1968. The Ottoman Impact on Europe (London, Thames and Hudson, and New York, Harcourt, Brace & World).

DANIEL, NORMAN. 1960. Islam and the West: The Making of an Image (Edinburgh, University Press).

EBERMANN, RICHARD. 1904. Die Tiirkenfurcht: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der iffentlichen Meinung in Deutschland wiihrend der Reformationszeit (Doctoral dissertation, Halle a. S.).

FISCHER-GALATI, STEPHEN A. 1959. Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism, 1521-1555 (Cambridge, Harvard Uni- versity Press).

GERSTENBERG, WILHELM. 1902. Zur Geschichte des deutschen Tiirkenschauspiels (Meppen, Wegener).

55 VOL. 58, PT. 9, 1968]


GIBB, SIR HAMILTON, and BOWEN, HAROLD. 1950-1957. Islamic Society and the West. 1: Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century. Parts I and II (London and New York, Oxford University Press).

GOLLOB, H. 1952. Friedrich Nausea: Probleme der Gegen- reformation (Wien, by the author).

HAMMER-PURGSTALL, JOSEPH VON. 1827-1835. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches (10 v., Pest, Hartleben).

HARTMANN, JULIUS. 1862. Johannes Brenz: Lehre und ausge- wiihlte Schriften (Elberfeld, Friderichs).

HITTI, PHILIP K. 1949. History of the Arabs. (4th ed., Lon- don, Macmillan).

HOFMANN, REINHOLD. 1892. Dr. Georg Agricola: Ein Gelehr- tenleben auf dem Zeitalter der Reformation (Gotha, Perthes).

KAMIL, BURHANEDDIN. 1935. Die Tiirken in der deutschen Literatur bis zum Barock und die Sultangestalten in den Tiirkendramen Lohensteins (Doctoral dissertation, Kiel).

KANN, ROBERT A. 1960. A Study in Austrian Intellectual History from Late Baroque to Romanticism (London, Thames and Hudson).

KLAUS, BERNHARD. 1958. Veit Dietrich, Leben und Werk (Niirnberg, Verein fur Bayerische Kirchengeschichte).

KOHLER, MANFRED. 1938. Melanchthon und der Islam (Leipzig, Klotz).

LAMPARTER, HELMUT. 1940. Luthers Stellung zum Tiirkenkrieg (Doctoral dissertation, Tubingen).

METZNER, JOSEPH. 1884. Friedrich Nausea aus Waischenfeld, Bischof von Wien (Regensburg, Manz).

NIEMANN, GarTFRIED. 1905. Die Dialogliteratur der Reforma- tionszeit nach ihrer Entstehung und Entwicklung (Leipzig, Voigtlander).

PREUSS, HANS. 1906. Die Vorstellungen vom Antichrist im spdteren Mittelalter, bei Luther und in der konfessionellen Polemik (Leipzig, Hinrichs).

ROUILLARD, CLARENCE D. [1941.] The Turk in French History, Thought, and Literature (1520-1660) (Paris, Boivin).

SCHOLTZE, A. 1880. Die orientalische Frage in der iffentlichen Meinung des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts (Frankenberg, Real- schule).

SCHWOEBEL, ROBERT. 1967. The Shadow of the Crescent: The Renaissance Image of the Turk (New York, St. Martin's Press).

SMITH, BYRON PORTER. 1939. Islam in English Literature (Beirut, Lebanon, American Press).

SOUTHERN, RICHARD W. 1962. Western Views of Islam in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).

STAVRIANOS, LEFTEN S. 1958. The Balkans since 1453 (New York, Rinehart).

VAUGHAN, DOROTHY M. 1954. Europe and the Turk: A Pattern of Alliances, 1350-1700 (Liverpool, University Press).

WOLF, JOHN B. 1951. The Emergence of the Great Powers, 1685-1715 (New York, Harper).

WOLKAN, RUDOLF. 1904. Zu den Tiirkenliedern des XVI. Jahrhunderts (Wien, by the author).

ZELTNER, G. G. 1732. Kurze Erliuterung der Niirnbergischen Schul- und Reformationsgeschichte, aus dem Leben und Schriften des beriihmten Sebald Heyden (Niirnberg, Endter).

B. Articles

ARNAKIS, GEORGIADES G. 1952. "The Greek Church of Con- stantinople and the Ottoman Empire." Jour. Modern Hist. 24: pp. 235-250.

BABINGER, FRANZ. 1959. "Der Islam in Siidosteuropa," in Volker und Kulturen Siidosteuropas: Kulturhistorische Bei- trdge, ed. Balduin Saria (Miinchen, Siidosteuropa-Verlagge- sellschaft), pp. 211-217.

- 1959. "Die Osmanen auf dem Balkan," in Volker und Kulturen Siidosteuropas, ed. B. Saria (Munchen), pp. 199-210.

-- 1919. "Die tiirkischen Studien in Europa bis zum Auftreten Josef von Hammer-Purgstalls," Die Welt des Islams 7: pp. 103-129.

BUCHANAN, HARVEY. 1956. "Luther and the Turks, 1519- 1529." Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, 47, Part II: pp. 145-159.

COSACK, C. J. 1871. "Zur Litteratur der Tiirkengebete im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert." Zur Geschichte der evangelischen ascetischen Litteratur in Deutschland (Basel, Riehm), pp. 163-242.

FISHER, SYDNEY N. 1952. "Ottoman Feudalism and Its In- fluence upon the Balkans." The Historian 15 (autumn): pp. 3-22.

FORELL, GEORGE W. 1945. "Luther and the War against the Turks." Church History 14: pp. 256-271.

PARRY, V. J. 1958. "The Ottoman Empire, 1520-66," in The New Cambridge Modern History 2: The Reformation (Cam- bridge, England, Cambridge University Press), pp. 510-533.

ROrH, F. W. E. 1896. "Johann Haselberg von Reichenau, Verleger und Buchfiihrer, 1515-1538." Archiv fur Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels 18: pp. 16-18.

SETTON, KENNETH M. 1962. "Lutheranism and the Turkish Peril." Balkan Studies 3: pp. 133-168.

ST6LLER, FERDINAND. 1929-1930. "Soliman vor Wien." Mit- teilungen des Vereines fur Geschichte der Stadt Wien 10/11: pp. 11-76.

WOHLWILL, ADOLPH. 1915. "Deutschland, der Islam und die Tiirkei," Part I. Euphorion 22: pp. 1-21.

C. Unpublished Scholarly Works

PATRIAS, HELENE. "Die Tiirkenkriege im Volkslied." Doctoral dissertation, Wien, 1947. (Typewritten.)

STOLLER, FERDINAND. "Die Verwiistungen Nieder6sterreichs durch feindliche Einfalle (1529, 1532 u. 1683)." Wien: Museum Oesterreichischer Kultur, MS 64b, 1946. (Type- written.) - "Oesterreich in den Tiirkenkriegen." Wien: Museum Oesterreichischer Kultur, MS 73, 1948. (Typewritten.)


INDEX

Abraham a Sancta Clara, 40 Adrian VI, Pope, 11, 36 Advice and Exhortation, 14, 26-27, 39 n.

33 Agricola, Georg, 14, 18 n. 48, 19 Akinji, 7, 8 Albania, 6 Alexander the Great, 23, 46, 50 Algiers, 6 Anabaptists, 20, 21, 34, 49 Anatolia, see Asia Minor Anschlag, see Project Antichrist, 5, 24, 25, 32 n. 1, 46 Antioch, 44 Anzeigung, see How to Conquer Turkey Apponyi, Sandor, 15 Arabs, 5, 6 Artisans, 27 Asia Minor, 6, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27 Assyrians, 23, 25, 46 Aucassin et Nicolette, 8 Augustine of Hippo, 43, 46 Ausszug, see Excerpt Austria, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 26, 38, 39,

40, 45, 47

Baldwin of Boulogne, crusader, 45 Balkan peninsula, 6, 19, 25, 33, 38-39 Barbary corsairs, 6, 7 Bavaria, 10, 16, 17, 39, 45 Belgrade, 5, 6, 9, 10, 27, 35, 37 n. 23, 43,45 Bernard of Clairvaux, 48 Boccaccio's Decameron, 8 Bohemia, 14, 15, 17, 39, 46 Bohemond of Taranto, crusader, 45 Bosnia, 6, 8, 45 Brant, Sebastian, 9 Brentel, Jorg, 17, 32 n. 1 Brenz, Johannes, 13, 14, 23 n. 19, 33 n. 6,

34, 46-50 Buda, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 23 Bulgaria, 6 Burghers, 27, 30 Byzantium, 6, 9, 47

Calixtus III, Pope, 9, 42, 43, 45 Cantzler, see Kanzler Capistrano, John of, 6, 9, 43, 45 Captivus Septemcastrensis, 18 Carinthia, 6, 9 Carniola, 6, 9, 14, 39 Catholic Church, see Clergy; Monaster-

ies; Papacy; "Papists" Chaldeans, 23, 42, 46 Chaldiran, battle of, 6 Charles, Duke of Lorraine, 8 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 2, 7,

13, 14, 27, 37, 41, 43, 45, 46 Charles the Great (Charlemagne), 44 Christian unity, idea of, 14, 36-37, 39 Christians and Christianity under Turkish

rule, as viewed by German pamphleteers, 20-22, 24, 25, 32, 35, 37, 44, 47, 51

Cilicia, 44 Clement VII, Pope, 46 Clergy, Catholic, 26-27, 30; Lutheran, 29 Constantinople, 6, 9, 14, 18, 32, 37, 47

Conversion of Christians to Islam, as viewed by the pamphleteers, 12, 16, 20- 22, 25, 51

Conversion of Moslems, Lutheran hopes for, 22, 31, 37

Croatia, 8 Cronberg, see Kronberg Crusade projects, 9, 11, 35-36; see also

War projects Crusades, medieval, 5, 8, 13, 44-45, 48 Crusading ideology, 8-9, 12, 13, 14, 32-33,

34, 35, 37, 38-39, 43-46, 48 n. 2 Curipeschitz, Benedict, 14, 18, 27, 28, 30

n. 23, 37-39; on Ottoman army and government, 38; on military inefficiency of the Holy Roman Empire, 38

Daniel, Book of, 12-13, 21, 23, 46, 47, 48 Dante's Divine Comedy, 8 Das ist ein anschlag eyns zugs wider die

Tiirckenn, see Project Denmark, 5, 39 Devil, see Satan Devshirme, 21 Dietrich, Veit, 19, 22 n. 15, 29, 30, 31, 33

n. 4, 34, 51

Egypt, 6, 23, 41, 46 Ein kleglich ansuchen, 15 Ein kurtze Christliche Ermanung, 17 Ein Sendbrieff, 12, 24, 28-29 England, 9, 31-32 n. 31, 39 Erasmus, Desiderius, 5, 10, 18 Erinnerung, see Reminder Ermanung an das Gemeyn Christenlich

Volck, 17 Eschatology, Lutheran, 12-13, 23-24, 31,

33, 40, 46-48 Esseg, Habsburg defeat at, 8, 11 n. 4, 14 Eugenius IV, Pope, 45 "Evangelical Christians," condemned by

Catholic writers, 27, 29; criticized by Lutheran writers, 30

Excerpt from a Letter Written by a Resi- dent of Turkey, 11, 18, 20, 21 n. 13, 36 n. 16

Ezekiel, Book of, 43, 46

Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria, King of Hungary, King of the Romans, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, 38, 46

Fiftieth Psalm, 43, 51 France, 5, 9, 36, 39 Frederick Barbarossa, Holy Roman Em-

peror, 45 Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, 45 Freising, bishopric of, 41, 42, 43

Germany, see Holy Roman Empire Giovio, Paolo, 18 Godfrey of Bouillon, crusader, 44, 45 Greece, 6, 20, 23 Greff, Joachim, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27-28 Grosswardein, Treaty of, 8 Guns, Hungarian fortress, 7

57

Habsburgs, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 36, 38; see also Charles V; Ferdinand

Haselberg, Johann, 2, 13, 19, 37 Heyden, Sebald, 13, 32 n. 1 Holy Land, 5, 6, 32, 33 n. 4, 44, 45, 48 Holy Roman Empire, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12,

13, 19, 22, 23-24, 27, 28-29, 30, 32-40 passim, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46-50 passim; see also Curipeschitz; Princes, German; Semerin; Tiircken biechlin (1522); Turks, Ottoman

Holy Sepulcher, 9, 13, 32, 36, 37 How to Conquer Turkey, 11, 29, 30-31 Humility, Christian, 34, 44 Hungary and the Hungarians, 5, 6, 7, 8,

10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33, 36, 37 n. 23, 39, 45, 48, 51

Hunyadi, John, Hungarian general, 6, 45, 48

Hutten, Ulrich von, 9

Imperial Estates, German, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 19 n. 5, 38, 39

Innocent III, Pope, 42 Isabella, wife of John Zapolya, 8 Islam, 5, 6, 13, 16, 18, 20-24 passim, 32, 33,

34, 37, 38, 43, 47, 48, 50; see also Con- version

Israelites, ancient, 25, 34, 41-42, 43, 44, 49 Italy, 9, 39, 46, 48

Jajce, 45 Janissaries, 38 Jeremiah, Book of, 42, 46, 49 Jerusalem, 5, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49 Jews: ancient, see Israelites; modern, 28,

35, 37, 43, 44, 49; "Red Jews," 50 Joachim II, Elector of Brandenburg, 17 John Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 15, 39 Jonah, Book of, 46 Jonas, Justus, 3, 12-13, 15; compares

Pope and Turk, 24 n. 22; eschatology, 23, 33; on "extirpation" of Christianity in Turkey, 20-21; on Islam, 21; on prayer against the Turk, 34; on sins of the "Evangelical Christians," 30; on war against the Turk, 33

Kanzler, Wolfgang, 13, 26, 29, 32 n. 1 Kara Mustafa, grand vizir, 8, 10 Kheyr ed-din "Barbarossa," corsair, 6, 7 Knaust, Heinrich, 16, 18, 19, 22 Knights of St. John, 6 Koran, see Islam Kretz, Matthias, 14, 31 n. 26, 32n. 2, 34-

35, 41-46 Kronberg, Hartmut von, 11, 33 n. 6, 36-37

Ladislaus, see Ulaszlo Landsknechte, 16, 17, 26 n. 3, 28, 34-36,

38, 41 Last Judgment, see Eschatology, Lutheran Letter from Turkey, see Excerpt from a

Letter Louis II, King of Hungary, 7, 12 n. 9 Luther, Martin, 3, 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 30

n. 23, 40, 48 n. 2; attacked by Catholic


authors, 12, 24, 28-29; compares Pope and Turk, 24; on crusades, 12, 32-33; eschatology, 12, 15, 23-24, 31, 33; fears conversion of Germans to Islam, 12, 15, 22; on German Turkophiles, 20; on the "saints of God," 23, 31; on sins of the "Evangelical Christians," 30

Lutherans, see "Evangelical Christians"

Mahomet, see Islam Mathias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 6,

45, 48 Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, 9 Mecca, 6 Medes, 23, 42, 46 Medina, 6 Mehmed II, Sultan, 6, 45, 47 Melanchthon, Philip, 13 n. 14, 24 n. 22 Merchants, 27, 28 Methodius of Olympus, 50 Methodius, thirteenth-century soothsayer,

50 Mohacs, battle of, 6, 7, 11, 12, 28 Mohammed, see Islam Monarchs of Europe, criticized by the

pamphleteers, 27, 38-39 Monasteries, 11, 24, 29, 30-31, 49 Montecuccoli, Raimondo, Imperial Gen-

eral, 8 Morocco, 36 Moslems, see Conversion; Islam Murad II, Sultan, 21, 45

Nausea, Friedrich, 16, 34 Netherlands, 9 Nicea, 44 Nineveh, 42, 46 Nobility, German, 27, 28, 38 Nuremberg, 13, 15-16

Osiander, Andreas, 3, 15, 16, 31; on sins of the Christians, 25-26; on war against the Turk, 33

Pacifism, arguments against, 16, 34, 49-50 Palestine, see Holy Land Papacy, 8, 11, 36; condemned by Pro-

testant authors, 23, 24, 36-37; criticized by Catholic authors, 30; see also Semerin

"Papists," attacked by Lutheran writers, 20, 23, 29-30, 50

Paul of Tarsus, 47, 49, 51 Peasants, 27, 28, 30 Persians: ancient, 23, 46; modern, 6, 8, 39 Philip, Bishop of Freising, 41, 43 Philip Augustus, King of France, 45 Pius II, Pope (Aeneas Silvius Piccolo-

mini), 9, 45 Poland, 8, 11, 39 Pope, see Papacy Prayer against the Turk: as a theme in

the pamphlets, 12-17 passim, 31, 32, 33 n. 4, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51; prayer texts in the pamphlets, 31 n. 31, 50

Princes, German, 7, 17, 27-28, 32-40 pas- sin, 46-47, 48

Project for a Crusade against the Turks, 9, 17, 35-36, 54

"Prophecies" concerning the Turks, 37, 38 Protestants, see "Evangelical Christians"

Rathschlag vnd vermanung, see Advice and Exhortation

Reminder of the Deserved Afflictions of Germany, 13

Repentance, Christian, 3, 11-17 passim, 25, 26, 31, 32, 34, 40, 41-42, 44, 51

Rhodes, 5, 6, 11, 27, 37 n. 23, 47 Richard the Lion-Hearted, King of Eng-

land, 45 Roman Empire, ancient, 23, 42, 46 Romans, Epistle to the, see Paul of Tarsus

Sabac, 46 St. Gotthard, battle of, 8 "Saints of God," in Lutheran pamphlets,

23, 31, 32 n. 1, 46 Saracens, 44, 45, 48 Satan, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 40,

47, 51 Selim I, Sultan, 6 Semerin, Ivo, 15; attacks the Papacy, 39;

on reconciliation of Catholics and Luth- erans, 39; on sins of Europe's rulers, 27; project for war against the Turks, 39

Serbia, 6 Seventy-Ninth Psalm, as a prayer against

the Turk, 16, 42 Sigismund, King of Hungary, 45 Sipahis, 38 Slavery in Turkey, 21-22, 38 Slavonia, 8

Sobieski, John, King of Poland, 8 Soldiery, German, see Landsknechte Spain, 5, 7, 39 Styria, 6, 7, 9, 39 Suleiman the Magnificent, Sultan, 2, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 36, 40

Syria, 5, 6, 41

Theodosius I, Roman Emperor, 43 Transylvania, 7, 8, 18 Tiirck zum Birgel, Bernhardin, 16-17,

19-20 Tiircken biechlin (1522), 14, 18, 19 n. 6,

28, 30, 32 n. 2; on the disunity of Chris- tendom, 10, 11, 36; on Turkish military strength and German military weakness, 10, 36; project for war against the Turks, 36

Turkish theme in European thought and literature, 8-10

Turkophiles in Germany, 20, 21 Turks, Ottoman, 5-8; as viewed by the

pamphleteers: bias of the authors, 18- 19; Turkish army, 10-11, 14, 36, 38; cruelty, 19, 20-26 passim, 34, 37, 42, 43, 44, 47, 51; government, 10-11, 36, 38; hostility to Christianity, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18-26 passim, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 44, 47, 50, 51; perfidy, 19-20; Turks as enemies of God, 12-13, 23-24, 31, 41, 47-49; as scourge of God, 3, 11-18 passitm, 25-31 passim, 40, 41, 46, 50, 51; as threat to the Holy Roman Empire, 10-18 passimn, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32-34, 36-42, 45-48 passim, 51; see also slavery

Twentieth Psalm, 16, 34

Ulaszlo I, King of Hungary, 21, 45 Urban II, Pope, 44

Varna, battle of, 21 Vienna, 5, 7, 12, 13, 20, 23, 26, 38, 40 Vincent Ferrer, Saint, 24

War projects in the Tiirkenbiichlein, 11, 36-37, 39

Zapolya, John, Prince of Transylvania, 7, 8, 19-20

Zapolya, John Sigismund, 8


BOHNSTEDT_The Infidel Scourge of God

Documents

Transcript of BOHNSTEDT_The Infidel Scourge of God