W hen exactly N iclaes’ doctrines were brought to England is uncertain; the generally accepted view is that they reached England during the reign of Queen Mary^*^ (Hamilton 1981: 115). The man who allegedly played a role in their introduction, the joiner Christopher Vittels"^^, was to become the most important propagator of N iclaes’ beliefs in England in the 1570s and to translate the majority of N iclaes’ work into English. Nevertheless, determining the exact role Vittels played in the history o f the English branch of the Family o f Love is not easy, for he left no spiritual biography and seems to have stayed out o f all court or other public records (Martin 1989: 205). O f V ittels’ life unsettlingly little is known: we have no
^ E vid en ce that N ic la e s’ b eliefs attracted attention in England at the tim e can be found in a letter N icla es w rote (som ew here betw een 1553 and 1558) to tw o ‘M aydens o f W arffike’, w hom he addressed as adherents o f the F am ily. The letter, w hich survived o n ly in manuscript, w as edited by A lastair H am ilton in a m odem edition in 1980: ‘Three Epistles by Hendrik N ic la e s’, Q u aeren do 10, pp. 5 8 -6 4 .
Chapter I
date, nor place of birth or death. Vittels seems to have been very careful not to attract the authorities’ attention, and even before the major literary attacks on the Family in the 1570s, which certainly must have increased V ittels’ secrecy, the Fam ily’s critic John Rogers complained that he could not retrace V ittels’ whereabouts for that period (Moss 1981: 28).
It is not known where Christopher Vittels came from. In view of his ability to translate N iclaes’ works, the question arises whether Vittels might have been of Dutch or German origin. This question seems fairly simple to answer. If Vittels had been of foreign origin, his nationality would have been an element immediately picked upon by the English critics of the Family who seem to have used every scrap of information they could get their hands on to disgrace the Familists^^. But the Fam ily’s opponents do not stigmatise Vittels as a foreigner: William Wilkinson (1579: sig. *3r) claimed that Vittels brought his beliefs from ‘D utchland’ into England, but he did not say that Vittels was actually bom there^^.
The first glimpse we get of V ittels’ ideas on religion is through a confession written by Henry Orinell, an inhabitant of the village of Willingham in Cambridgeshire, and reproduced in the late 1570s in William W ilkinson’s attack on the Family (Hamilton 1981: 115). Orinell had allegedly encountered Vittels in a Colchester inn in 1555, where a heated debate between Vittels and a militant preacher of the Gospel, John Barry, was taking place (Heal 1972: 215). The public present were a mixture o f local lay people: servants, husbandmen and women all seem to have been fascinated by the theological issues, discussed by Vittels and Barry (Spufford 1974: 247). The ideas Vittels supposedly expressed were an interesting mixture o f Anabaptist, Arian and Familist beliefs. Vittels had claimed that ‘children ought not to be baptised, untill they come to the yeares of discretion’, and had held the Arian views that Christ was not the Son of God and that the godly
The fact that N iclaes w as not E n glish w as looked upon w ith disdain by the critics o f the E nglish F am ily (R ogers 1579a: sig. D 7v; 1579b: sig. A6r).
Even though John R ogers (1579a: sig. E 8v) sneered that V itte ls’ actions in bringing the Fam ilist doctrines ‘to our countrye, and translating the bookes ... w as not done lyke ... a true English harted m an’.
do not sin. T h e idea Vittels possibly b o n 'o w e d from N iclae s w as his assertion that
K itto i
the Pope was not the A ntich rist biitAvas to be identified with all the ungodly. But m ost interesting is O r in e ll’s claim that Vittels p raised ‘a great and learned sc h o o lm a s te r ... w h o lived b e y o n d the seas an holy life and an upright c o n v e r s a tio n ’. It w as only a fte rw a rd s that Orinell realised V ittels had been talking abo u t ‘one H enry Nicholas'^*^. Orinell further re c o u n te d how Vittels, ‘w a n d ry n g u p p e and d o w n e the C o u n tre y (to visite his d is c ip le )’, had shortly after their m e e tin g in the inn sent for him ‘to sp ea k e with hym at an A l e h o u s e ’ to further discuss religious m atters; an offer w hich Orinell c la im e d he d ec lin e d (W ilkinson
1579: sig. *3v-4r).
Vittels is p o rtra y e d in the ep iso d e as an itinerant preacher: a m an w h o travelled the English c o u n try sid e d isc u s s in g theological issues with those w h o m he m et on his w ays^'. W h a t V ittels ta u g h t at this point can at best be d e sc rib e d as an adulterated form of Fam ilism . Indeed on the whole, it w o u ld seem that V ittels' k n o w le d g e of Niclaes" beliefs in the 1550s was still limited and superficial, and w e know that shortly after Q u e e n E liz a b e th ’s accession to the throne Vittels w as forced to recant at P a u l’s C ross not as a Eamilist but as an Arian^^ (H a m ilto n 1981: 116). As R ogers (1 579b: sig. D 3r) sarcastically stated, V ittels had been an A rian in the 1550s but had then gone ‘a m alo in p e i u s ’, r e f e m n g to V itte ls ’ later in v o lv e m e n t in the F am ily o f Love. T h e religious in co n stan c y o f V ittels w as an ele m e n t frequently snorted at by his enemies^^.
A n o th er piece o f potential evidenc e o f F am ilist activity in E n g la n d dates from 1561 and w as r e p ro d u c e d by John R o g e rs in 1579. In a co n fessio n to W illiam
A lthough V ittels may have w ell been referring to D avid Joris or som eon e else.
For further d iscu ssion s on the issue, see: Martin, J.W. (1979). ‘Christopher Vitel: an Elizabethan M echanick Preacher’, Sixteenth C entury Journal 10, pp. 15-22.
V ittels indeed admitted his recantation but, according to John Rogers (1579a: sig. C2r), claim ed he had done so voluntarily for he had felt his earlier life to have been a mistake: ' ... so have I [i.e. V ittels] humbled my selfe before the Lord and his M inister HN as the greatest sinner am ong sinners, desiring the Lord that he ... w oulde ... forgeve me all my o ff e n c e s ...’.
John R ogers (ibid.: sig. K3r) sum m ed V ittels’ life up as follow s: ‘... in King H enrye’s raigne ... unconstant, in King Ldwardes raigne, a dissem bler, and in Q ueene Maryes raigne, a playne Arryan, and now ... a chiefe teacher o f the Lam il ye o f L o v e .’.
Chapter I
More, the justice o f the peace in Surrey, two men, Thomas Chaundler, a clothier from Wonersh, and Robert Strete, a clerk from Dunsfeld, gave an account of their beliefs which Rogers eagerly used to attack and discredit the Familists (Hamilton 1981: 117). The accounts o f these two men should be treated with the necessary caution for, according to Rogers him self (1579a: sig. K lv-K 2r), Vittels later maintained that Chaundler and Strete were not acquainted with N iclaes’ doctrines^"^. The two men claim ed to belong to ^ ^ n m u n i t y with branches in southern and eastern England^^, indeed, the placest fa m ilis t ideas in the 1570s were to strike root. But even though they named ‘Henrycke a D utchm an’ as the head of their congregation (Rogers 1579b: sig. H3v-H4r), they, like Vittels a few years earlier, held ideas which differed substantially from N iclaes’ doctrines. Both denied the Trinity and that Christ was equal to God, and they held the belief that nobody should be baptised before the age of thirty. They believed the Arian tenet that ‘all thynges are ruled by nature’ and stated that heaven and hell are in this life (ibid.: sig. H7r-H7v). They opposed the bearing of weapons and defended the necessity to marry within the community (ibid.: sig. H6r). Together with their attitude towards baptism, these beliefs aligned them with Anabaptism rather than with Niclaesism. However, they made an interesting remark on N iclaes’ whereabouts, stating that he is ‘permanent in no place, but styll wandryth to vysytte his flock’ (ibid.: sig. H3v- H4r), possibly referring to a visit Niclaes paid to England after his flight from Emden - an elem ent which I will discuss/n Hop ^detail later on in this thesis. But even if Niclaes had indeed been in England to visit his followers there, what Chaundler and Strete knew about Familism seems to have been based more on hearsay than on first-hand acquaintance with N iclaes’ writings (Hamilton 1981: 119); this was to change significantly in the 1570s.
V ittels, indeed, claim ed that Chaundler and Strete knew nothing o f N ic la e s’ doctrines, but added the curious phrase ‘w hat they w ere, that is that’ (R ogers 1579a: sig. K lv -K 2 r). M aybe this w as an adm ission that even though the tw o men did not fu lly understand N ic la e s’ doctrines, just as V ittels h im self in the 1550s, they w ere F am ilists, m aybe because it had even been V ittels h im self w h o had taught them this tainted version o f Fam ilism (M oss 1981: 27).
T hey claim ed that congregations o f Fam ilists existed in the Isle o f E ly, E ssex, Berkshire, S u ssex, Ham pshire, D evonshire, and L ondon (Hamilton 1981: 118).
The importance of the arrival of the English translations of N iclaes’ works in the early 1570s cannot be overestimated. Especially knowledge o f N iclaes’ teachings, but also belief in and obedience to his person was to become much stronger. Before the arrival of N iclaes’ works, Familists in the parish of Balsham were prepared to disown some o f their beliefs in order to evade serious prosecution; by 1580, brought before the authorities again, several o f the same men preferred the prospect of prison to that of dissembling their faith anew (M arsh 1994: 79-80). Together with the arrival of N iclaes’ works, Vittels emerged as the major figure in English Familism, not least because he him self had been responsible for translating the prophet’s works into English. It is difficult to say how exactly Vittels attained the close relationship with Niclaes that made him the English translator of the Familist writings. J.W. Martin (1989: 209) provided a highly probable explanation. He suggested that Vittels spent many years between 1559 and 1574 on the Continent as a textile merchant, giving him ready access to Niclaes, him self a dealer in textiles. Martin based this suggestion on the London port record of 1568 in which reference is made to a textile merchant with the name Christopher Vittels who traded with the Netherlands. The role Vittels played in the English Family throughout the 1570s was a constant theme in the works of his critics. Rogers called Vittels the ‘oldest Elder’ of the English Family (1579b: sig. D3v) and the ‘onely man, that hath brought this wicked doctrine of HN, which lay hidden in the Dutch tongue, among our simple English people’ (1579a: sig. K2r). W ilkinson (1579: sig. 0 2 v ) agreed with Rogers that Vittels was the undisputed leader of the Familist movement in England and plainly called Vittels N iclaes’ ‘heyre’. Indeed, it was Vittels with whom the English critics stood in heated correspondence; Rogers even published the replies Vittels composed in answer to R ogers’ attacks on the Family o f Love^^.
At the same time, the arrival of N iclaes’ translations in England also aroused the attention of the authorities and led to serious investigation of the movement. The
R ogers’ An A n sw ere unto an Infam ous L ibel w as stim ulated by V ittels’ reply to R ogers’ initial attack on the Fam ily, The D isp la yin g o f an H orrible Secte.
Chapter I
first systematic series of confessions were being taken from 1574 onwards^^ and the major literary attacks on the Family com menced in the mid-1570s. This period of heightened hostile interest in the Family affords us, ironically enough, detailed insights into the shape the movement took after the influx of N iclaes’ works in translation and the major proselytising activities of Vittels.
It seems that the first English followers of Niclaes were to be found in East Anglia, an area where all heresy in the sixteenth century is best documented and, perhaps not unimportantly, the place where many textile merchants and workers from Holland resided (Ebel 1966-67: 337). From there, Familist ideas seem to have spread to Cambridgeshire and its surroundings, to Devon, Surrey, and even the royal court^^ (Marsh 1994: 7). It is, however, very difficult to reach any reliable conclusion as to the numerical strength o f the English Family. Rogers (1579b: sig. B7r) claimed that ‘there are in England, at the least 1000 in divers partes o f this realm ’, while W ilkinson (1579: sig. *3v) vaguely stated that ‘the encrease of the familie is great, and that dayly’. The number suggested by Rogers seems to have been exaggerated, undoubtedly to make his mission as one of the Fam ily’s critic more impressive and important. It is more likely that the English branch of the Family was a small but close-knit group of individuals and families^^, and that sixteenth-century anxieties over its existence were disproportionate to the group’s actual strength and impact (Poole 2000: 79).
The spread and consequent consolidation of the Family in the 1570s needs to be ascribed almost completely to Christopher Vittels and a few other Elders of the
N in e con fession s w ere extracted from alleged m em bers o f the Fam ily during the reign o f Elizabeth I (Marsh 1994: 34).
Supposed m em bers o f the Fam ily o f L ove at the court o f Elizabeth I w ere fiv e Y eom en o f the Guard, on e o f the K eepers o f the R oyal Armoury at East G reenw ich, one or both o f the Y eom en o f the Jew el H ouse, and one o f the G entlem en Pensioners (ibid.: 116).
In one o f the strongholds o f the m ovem ent, the D io c e se o f Ely, there w ere about sixty Fam ilists (H eal 1972: 221).
movement^^, who continually travelled the English countryside to spread N iclaes’ beliefs. W ilkinson (1579: sig. K2v) com plained about the E lders’ proselytising activities and their endless travelling, saying that they ‘using such a rom yng kynde o f Traffique, keepe not commonly any one certaine abidyng place’. M any of the Fam ily’s Elders seem to have been merchants who wandered the country following existing trading networks (Marsh 1994: 7); indeed, William W ilkinson (1579: sig. K2v) referred to the m ovem ent’s Elders as traders, claiming that ‘where they dwell they have gotten licences to trade for C orne’. Vittels and his Elders were in charge o f the book distribution and, equally important, selecting new groups of people that were to be introduced to N iclaes’ ideas (Marsh 1994: 88). It was especially in rural parishes that Vittels looked for new followers^’. He approached those with an interest in unorthodox views^^ and who searched for spiritual sustenance, while wanting to live peacefully in their parishes. The Familist confessions, to which I will refer in more detail in the next chapter, are characterised by a quiet mysticism and a striving for inward, spiritual transformation (ibid.: 41, 64). Vittels seems to have had a keen eye for those people whom he thought most likely to be receptive to N iclaes’ doctrines; this is not at all surprising if we consider the experience he undoubtedly had gained while discussing religious matters with ordinary people earlier in his life. According to W ilkinson (1579: sig. *3v-4r), Vittels was so shrewd as to note the names of the people he met during his tours of inns and alehouses, so that they later could be approached on a more personal level and introduced to N iclaes’ beliefs.
S om e o f the Elders o f the E nglish Fam ily are know n by name: John B ourne, a glover, w as the local leader o f the W isbech com m unity and also Thom as A llen, a mercer, and D avid Oram, a joiner, w ere Elders (H am ilton 1981: 118).
T he fact that the Fam ily in E ngland w as m ainly a rural lay m ovem ent largely depended on V ittels and his Elders w h o spread N ic la e s’ b eliefs am ong these section s o f society.
M arsh (1994: 64) also claim ed that som e Fam ilists had m ore orthodox roots. Henry Barnard and