Evidence of Ana/Baptist Book Production, 1521-1700: Some Technical Notes

Headline: A mainstream assumption in Mennonite studies since the early 20th century (maybe the 1880s, more accurately) is that early modern Mennonite history (i.e., Mennonite history before 1800 or even 1900) was shaped primarily by German culture and German-language sources. This assumption is problematic because it is built on an empirically questionable foundation! In other words, the sources and evidence for this assumption are weak.

*** *** *** *** ***

I’m in the process of writing an article for the Mennonitische Geschichtsblätter on the theme of “1625”. What follows are some technical notes.

The article will be titled “1625 – Das lange 17. Jahrhundert als eine Goldene Zeitalter täuferischer Buchproduktion“.

  • UPDATE (July 2022):
    • The German version of the essay is now scheduled for publication by about October 2022.
    • A Dutch version of the essay is now in the planning for publication at the very end of 2022 in the Doopsgezinde Bijdragen.

In preparation for the essay, I did some careful counting of titles in two research bibliographies. The details are available below.

In the essay I include a chart that gives a view of trends in European “Anabaptist” book production from 1521-1700, with results organized by language of publication. The pre-publication version of that chart is below. The production team and I are in discussions about the final version of the chart. NOTE: The exact numbers are not the most important details here. The trend-lines are what matters.

FYI: “Täufer” is the German word that often gets translated into English as “Anabaptist” (“Ana/Baptist” in my preferred translation now — July 2022). For more on the problems of translation related to this, see the following post with initial thoughts about “Ana/Baptist” as an alternative in English (https://dutchdissenters.net/wp/2015/08/photos-anabaptist-muenster/). Here is the chart:


Anabaptist Book Production, 1521-1700


I have focused on Dutch and German books. Books in other languages are not as common / significant (the distinction requires some discussion, particularly with regard to books in English, since we can now say, thanks to the research of Gary Waite and Ace Gammon-Burnett, that these books were common; proper comparative evaluations are difficult at this time). I should also emphasize that the numbers are meant to show an overall trend over many decades; they are NOT meant to be final or definitive numbers. More on these issues of language and numbers below.

Readers should also note: The chart above is a composite of three separate charts. The methodology for counting and combining the three charts requires lots of explanation.

One final note, for this post-in-progress: These data can and should be updated by lots of more recent bibliographies. These include the

*** *** *** *** ***

The remainder of the post is a work-in-progress. …

We know that most early modern Ana/Baptist books were written in Dutch, thanks to two bibliographies. In 1962 Hans Hillerbrand, with the help of Nelson P. Springer and many others, published A Bibliography of Anabaptism, 1520-1630; and in 1977 N.P. Springer and A.J. Klassen, again with the help of a bigger research team, published the Mennonite Bibliography, 1631-1961. Each of these bibliographies provides scholars with data from continental Europe and beyond; the Mennonite Bibliography was an ambitious attempt to gather primary and secondary literature from around the world. The collections are not without their gaps and blind spots, but from them we can get a reasonable sense of Ana/Baptist book production in Europe from the early Reformation until at least the early Enlightenment.

  • Issues to consider:
    • Re: the 1991 edition of Hillerbrand, my working thesis is that, while Hans Hillerbrand and team added about 1,000 titles to the 1991 edition of A Bibliography of Anabaptism, the new edition will not change the overall trends that my charts outline. My chart is based only on the data in the original 1962 edition. If anyone can show that this is a problem, I will be grateful!
    • Re: Editorial choices … LOTS TO SAY ABOUT THIS (further details pending)

Some initial thoughts…

To evaluate the contents of the two bibliographies I have counted books from relevant parts of each collection, taking care to note in which language each book was written. When selecting which portions of each bibliography to count, I had to make several choices. For my analysis of A Bibliography of Anabaptism, 1520-1630 I chose initially to only count the number of books written by Ana/Baptists, not their opponents which are recorded in a separate subsection. The books are not organized by region, only by subject. I also only counted sources published between 1521 and 1630 (not later editions) that are recorded in three subsections of the Bibliography (“Writings by Anabaptists”, “Hymnology”, and “Martyrology”), and I tried to avoid counting duplicate editions from the same year (I have also applied this principle to the counting of data from the 1977 bibliography).

I have included a graph and table of one set of results (i.e., results for works by Ana/Baptists until 1630 — from the sections listed above — but not from the sections on individual Ana/Baptists from the earlier pages of the Bibliography), organized by decade and language (Fig. 1.a. and 1.b. — the numbering of this chart pre-dates the creation of the other Fig. 1 [above]).

Here’s a BIG caveat to the data above: I have used the 1962 version of Hillerbrand. There is a new edition of this bibliography from 1991!!!.

Does the newer edition of Hillerbrand change any of my main conclusions? I suspect not. I suspect that any new data will confirm the trends that I highlight in this post. If anyone can prove me mistaken, I would be grateful!!!!

*** *** *** *** ***

The steady rise in Dutch-language book production, as well as the flat-lining of German-language printing, continued beyond 1630. This is evident from the data in the Mennonite Bibliography, 1631-1961, vol. 1. This 1977 bibliography is organized differently than the earlier one from 1962. The first of the collection’s two volumes is devoted to published literature from and about all parts of the world, apart from North America (the subject of vol. 2). Of the first volume’s approximately 530 pages, the great majority (pp. 80-487) list European literature under eight mostly national headings. The Netherlands is the focus of the longest section (pp. 91-363), followed by Germany and Switzerland, each with much shorter sections. These basic notes emphasize a point that Sprunger makes in the quotation from 2006 included earlier in my essay for the Geschichtsblätter: in the early modern era (and beyond) “the Netherlands exceeded all other countries in the quantity and quality of Mennonite-related printing”.

While I have focused in this essay primarily on book printed in the Dutch Republic, I have counted books in several sections.The Mennonite Bibliigraphy, vol. 1, includes the following sections:

  • pp. 91-363 The Netherlands (273 pp. – over half of the entire volume!!!)
    • Many of these pages are devoted to 19th-and 20th-century works.
    • Here’s a breakdown of the early modern works (1631-1699, and 1700-1799), as organized by the Springer / Klassen categories, with page numbers (89 pp. in total):
      • pp. 94-95 History and description (17th century) (2 pp.)
      • 95-101 History and description (18th century) (7 pp.)
      • 154-186 Doctrine (17th century) (33 pp.)
      • 186-208 Doctrine (18th century) (22 pp.)
      • 237-240 Hymnals (17th century) (4 pp.)
      • 240-241 Hymnals (18th century) (2 pp.)
      • 295-298 Miscellanea (17th century) (4 pp.)
      • 299-313 Miscellanea (18th century) (15 pp.)
  • 363-429 Germany (67 pp.)
  • 429-438 Switzerland (10 pp.)
  • 438-445 France (8 pp.)
  • 445-482 Russia (38 pp.)
  • 482-485 Hutterian Brethren in Europe (4 pp.)
  • 485-487 Other European countries (3 pp.)
  • 487-505 Latin America (19 pp.)
  • 505-524 Asia (20 pp.)
  • 524-531 Africa (8 pp.)

Most of the works from about p. 400 ff. are from 1800 and later.

For my analysis below I am only focusing on the biggest collections: those titles from Europe generally, from the Netherlands, from Germany, and from Switzerland. Each of these sections is divided into further subsections:

I have counted and organized by language (but not by region) those works from these sections from 1631-1700.

I have included another graph and table of the results, also organized by decade and language (Fig. 2.a. and 2.b.).

Again, several observations are in order. First, while the starting date of 1631 is determined by the selection criteria of the bibliography compilers, the end date of 1700 is completely arbitrary. I have chosen it only out of convenience. Second, it has to be noted that a major difference between the 1962 and 1977 bibliographies is that in the latter collection there is no distinction made between polemical works for or against Ana/Baptists. There is a good reason for this: namely, that by the 17th century, polemics against Ana/Baptists originated about equally from Ana/Baptist opponents of other Ana/Baptists as from Catholics, Lutherans or the Reformed. Therefore, the second set of data include printed texts by, about and against Ana/Baptists. Third, on a related note, the spike in publications in the 1660s is due largely to the War of the Lambs and other disputes connected with the Lamist-Zonist schism (see the third vignette from the opening of this essay). Finally, I have included a column for Latin works, since Ana/Baptists wrote a noteworthy number of scholarly works in that language.

Readers should know that I do not in any way claim that these data are definitive. First, they do not include the many manuscripts written by Ana/Baptist scribes and preserved in archives across Europe and elsewhere. While manuscripts are very valuable sources about the past, they take incredible amounts of energy to gather. Counting them for this essay would be too painstaking and time-consuming. I also think there are good reasons for focusing on printed books, namely, these were more reproducible than manuscripts, and therefore they could reach larger audiences and have greater impact. Second, it is worth noting that some of the works published in German (e.g., entry 2988, a selection from Geistliches Blumengärtlein [1680]) and were published in the Dutch Republic, while some Dutch-language books were published outside the Dutch Republic. However, most of the works in Dutch published after the creation of the Dutch Republic were published within its borders. Third, I have left out the few works published in other languages that are included in the Hillerbrand bibliography. These other languages of publication include English, and French, but these publication are so few in number that they seem to be insignificant. It is worth considering the selection criteria of the compiler here, since another work published in 1962, George H. Williams’s The Radical Reformation, included Italians among the Ana/Baptists of the 16th century, and from the early 17th century onward there was a growing collection of English-language books defending adult baptism. On a further topic related to the biases of the compiler, it should be noted that careful reviewers who know early modern Ana/Baptist history well will undoubtedly notice publications by Ana/Baptist authors that the compiler did not include. An example that stands out for me is that Hillerbrand includes only one publication by Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679). Even though Vondel was certainly one of the most prolific and important Mennonite writers of the 1620s, most of the works he produced are in the genres of poetry and dramatic literature. In other words, few of his publications fall into a conventional category of “Anabaptist” literature, even though they were indeed written by a man who was an Ana/Baptist at the time. Finally, regardless of the compiler’s historiographical choices and prejudices, anyone who reviews my work will probably come up with slightly different numbers than I have, either because I am sure to have made some mistakes or because other reviewers may well make evaluative choices that are not the same as mine.

Even with these cautions in mind, the data are clear and striking: Most Ana/Baptist books published between the middle of the 16th century and the end of the 17th century were written in Dutch, and most of these were published in the Dutch Republic (1581-1795). The clear conclusion is: The Dutch Republic was the cultural centre of gravity for early modern Ana/Baptism — at least from about 1600 to 1700 (and probably for longer on both sides of this chronological frame).

*** *** *** *** ***

I will add a very important caveat to this note.

… pending, about Swiss and other non-Dutch Ana/Baptisms …