THE COMMUNISTS
There have always been religious teachers for whom all material creation
was a thing of evil. Through the whole of the Middle Ages, under the
various names of Manicheans, Albigensians, Vaudois, &c., they became
exceedingly vigorous, though their importance was only fitful. For them
property was essentially unclean, something to be avoided as carrying
with it the in-dwelling of the spirit of evil. Etienne de Bourbon, a
Dominican preacher of the thirteenth century, who got into communication
with one of these strange religionists, has left us a record,
exceedingly unprejudiced, of their beliefs. And amongst their other
tenets, he mentions this, that they condemned all who held landed
property. It will be here noticed that as regards these Vaudois (or Poor
Men of Lyons, as he informs us they were called), there could have been
no question of communism at all, for a common holding of property would
have been as objectionable as private property. To hold material things
either in community or severalty was in either case to bind oneself to
the evil principle. Yet Etienne tells us that there was a sect among
them which did sanction communism; they were called, in fact, the
_Communati_ (_Tractatus de Diversis Materiis Predicabilibus_, Paris,
1877, p. 281). How they were able to reconcile this social state with
their beliefs it is quite impossible to say; but the presumption is that
the example of the early Christians was cited as of sufficient authority
by some of these teachers. Certain it is that a sect still lingered on
into the thirteenth century, called the _Apostolici_, who clung to the
system which had been in vogue among the Apostles. St. Thomas Aquinas
(_Summa Theologica_, 2_a_, 2_ae_, 66, 2) mentions them, and quotes St.
Augustine as one who had already refuted them. But these were seemingly
a Christian body, whereas the Albigensians could hardly make any such
claim, since they repudiated any belief in Christ's humanity, for it
conflicted with their most central dogma.
Still it is clear that there were in existence certain obscure bodies
which clung to communism. The published records of the Inquisition refer
incessantly to preachers of this kind who denied private property,
asserted that no rich man could get to heaven, and attacked the practice
of almsgiving as something utterly immoral.
The relation between these teachers and the Orders of friars has never
been adequately investigated. We know that the Dominicans and
Franciscans were from their earliest institution sent against them, and
must therefore have been well acquainted with their errors. And, as a
fact, we find rising among the friars a party which seemed no little
infected with the "spiritual" tendency of these very Vaudois. The
Franciscan reverence for poverty, which the Poor Man of Assisi had so
strenuously advocated, had in fact become almost a superstition. Instead
of being, as the saint had intended it to be, merely a means to an end,
it had in process of time become looked upon as the essential of
religion. When, therefore, the excessive adoption of it made religious
life an almost impossible thing, an influential party among the
Franciscans endeavoured to have certain modifications made which should
limit it within reasonable bounds. But opposed to them was a determined,
resolute minority, which vigorously refused to have any part in such
"relaxations." The dispute between these two branches of the Order
became at last so tempestuous that it was carried to the Pope, who
appointed a commission of cardinals and theologians to adjudicate on the
rival theories. Their award was naturally in favour of those who, by
their reasonable interpretation of the meaning of poverty, were fighting
for the efficiency of their Order. But this drove the extreme party into
still further extremes. They rejected at once all papal right to
interfere with the constitutions of the friars, and declared that only
St. Francis could undo what St. Francis himself had bound up. Nor was
this all, for in the pursuance of their zeal for poverty they passed
quickly from denunciations of the Pope and the wealthy clergy (in which
their rhetoric found very effective matter for argument) into abstract
reasoning on the whole question of the private possession of property.
The treatises which they have left in crabbed Latin and involved methods
of argument make wearisome and irritating reading. Most are exceedingly
prolix. After pages of profound disquisitions, the conclusions reached
seem to have advanced the problem no further. Yet the gist of the whole
is certainly an attempt to deny to any Christian the right to temporal
possessions. Michael of Cesena, the most logical and most effective of
the whole group, who eventually became the Minister-General of this
portion of the Order, does not hesitate to affirm the incompatibility of
Christianity and private property. From being a question as to the
teaching of St. Francis, the matter had grown to one as to the teaching
of Christ; and in order to prove satisfactorily that the practice of
poverty as inculcated by St. Francis was absolute and inviolable, it was
found necessary to hold that it was equally the declared doctrine of
Christ.
Even Ockham, a brilliant Oxford Franciscan, who, together with Michael,
defended the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, in his struggle against Pope
John XXII, let fall in the heat of controversy some sayings which must
have puzzled his august patron; for Louis would have been the very last
person for whom communism had any charms. Closely allied in spirit with
these "Spiritual Franciscans," as they were called, or Fraticelli, were
those curious mediaeval bodies of Beguins and Beghards. Hopelessly
pantheistic in their notion of the Divine Being, and following most
peculiar methods of reaching on earth the Beatific Vision, they took up
with the same doctrine of the religious duty of the communistic life.
They declared the practice of holding private property to be contrary to
the Divine Law.
Another preacher of communism, and one whose name is well known for the
active propaganda of his opinions, and for his share in the English
Peasant Revolt of 1381, was John Ball, known to history as "The Mad
Priest of Kent." There is some difficulty in finding out what his real
theories were, for his chroniclers were his enemies, who took no very
elaborate steps to ascertain the exact truth about him. Of course there
is the famous couplet which is said to have been the text of all his
sermons:
"Whaune Adam dalf and Eve span,
Who was thane a gentilman?"[1]
at least, so it is reported of him in the _Chronicon Angliae_, the work
of an unknown monk of St. Albans (Roll Series, 1874, London, p. 321).
Froissart, that picturesque journalist, who naturally, as a friend of
the Court, detested the levelling doctrines of this political rebel,
gives what he calls one of John Ball's customary sermons. He is
evidently not attempting to report any actual sermon, but rather to give
a general summary of what was supposed to be Ball's opinions. As such,
it is worth quoting in full.
"My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will
until everything shall be in common; when there shall be neither vassal
nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when lords shall be no more
masters than ourselves. How ill have they used us! and for what reason
do they thus hold us in bondage? Are we not all descended from the same
parents--Adam and Eve? And what can they show, and what reason give, why
they should be more the masters than ourselves? Except, perhaps, in
making us labour and work for them to spend." Froissart goes on to say
that for speeches of this nature the Archbishop of Canterbury put Ball
in prison, and adds that for himself he considers that "it would have
been better if he had been confined there all his life, or had been put
to death." However, the Archbishop "set him at liberty, for he could not
for conscience sake have put him to death" (Froissart's _Chronicle_,
1848, London, book ii. cap. 73, pp. 652-653).
From this extract all that can be gathered with certainty is the popular
idea of the opinions John Ball held; and it is instructive to find that
in the Primate's eyes there was nothing in the doctrine to warrant the
extreme penalty of the law. But in reality we have no certainty as to
what Ball actually taught, for in another account we find that,
preaching on Corpus Christi Day, June 13, 1381, during the last days of
the revolt, far fiercer words are ascribed to him. He is made to appeal
to the people to destroy the evil lords and unjust judges, who lurked
like tares among the wheat. "For when the great ones have been rooted up
and cast away, all will enjoy equal freedom--all will have common
nobility, rank, and power." Of course it may be that the war-fever of
the revolt had affected his language; but the sudden change of tone
imputed in the later speeches makes the reader somewhat suspicious of
the authenticity.
The same difficulty which is experienced in discovering the real mind of
Ball is encountered when dealing with Wat Tyler and Jack Straw, who
were, with him, the leaders of the revolt. The confession of Jack Straw
quoted in the _Chronicon Angliae_, like nearly all mediaeval
"confessions," cannot be taken seriously. His accusers and judges
readily supplied what they considered he should have himself admitted.
Without any better evidence we cannot with safety say along what lines
he pushed his theories, or whether, indeed, he had any theories at all.
Again, Wat Tyler is reported to have spoken threateningly to the King on
the morning of his murder by Lord Mayor Walworth; but the evidence is
once more entirely one-sided, contributed by those who were only too
anxious to produce information which should blacken the rebels in the
minds of the educated classes. As a matter of fact, the purely official
documents, in which we can probably put much more reliance (such as the
petitions that poured in from all parts of the country on behalf of the
peasants, and the proclamations issued by Richard II, in which all their
demands were granted on condition of their immediate withdrawal from the
capital), do not leave the impression that the people really advocated
any communistic doctrines; oppression is complained of, the lawyers
execrated, the labour laws are denounced, and that is practically all.
It may be, indeed, that the traditional view of Ball and his followers,
which makes them one with the contemporaneous revolts of the Jacquerie
in France, the Ciompi in Florence, &c., has some basis in fact. But at
present we have no means of gauging the precise amount of truth it
contains.
But even better known than John Ball is one who is commonly connected
with the Peasant Revolt, and whose social opinions are often grouped
under the same heading as that of the "Mad Priest of Kent,"--John
Wycliff, Master of Balliol, and parson of Lutterworth. This Oxford
professor has left us a number of works from which to quarry materials
to build up afresh the edifice he intended to erect. His chief
contribution is contained in his _De Civili Dominio_, but its
composition extended over a long period of years, during which time his
views were evidently changing; so that the precise meaning of his famous
theory on the Dominion of Grace is therefore difficult to ascertain.
But in the opening of his treatise he lays down the two main "truths"
upon which his whole system rests:
I. No one in mortal sin has any right to the gifts of God;
II. Whoever is in a state of grace has a right, not indeed to
possess the good things of God, but to use them.
He seems to look upon the whole question from a feudal point of view.
Sin is treason, involving therefore the forfeiture of all that is held
of God. Grace, on the other hand, makes us the liegemen of God, and
gives us the only possible right to all His good gifts. But, he would
seem to argue, it is incontestable that property and power are from God,
for so Scripture plainly assures us. Therefore, he concludes, by grace,
and grace alone, are we put in dominion over all things; once we are in
loyal subjection to God, we own all things, and hold them by the only
sure title. "Dominion by grace" is thus made to lead direct to
communism. His conclusion is quite clear: _Omnia debent esse communia_.
In one of his sermons (Oxford, 1869, vol. i. p. 260), when he has proved
this point with much complacent argumentation, he poses himself with the
obvious difficulty that in point of fact this is not true; for many who
are apparently in mortal sin do possess property and have dominion.
What, then, is to be done, for "they be commonly mighty, and no man dare
take from them"? His answer is not very cheerful, for he has to console
his questioner with the barren scholastic comfort that "nevertheless, he
hath them not, but occupieth things that be not his." Emboldened by the
virtue of this dry logic, he breaks out into his gospel of plain
assertion that "the saints have now all things that they would have."
His whole argument, accordingly, does not get very far, for he is still
speaking really (though he does not at times very clearly distinguish
between the two) much more about the right to a thing than its actual
possession. He does not really defend the despoiling of the evil rich at
all--in his own graphic phrase, "God must serve the Devil"; and all that
the blameless poor can do is to say to themselves that though the rich
"possess" or "occupy," the poor "have." It seems a strange sort of
"having"; but he is careful to note that, "as philosophers say, 'having
is in many manners.'"
Wycliff himself, perhaps, had not definitely made up his mind as to the
real significance of his teaching; for the system which he sketches does
not seem to have been clearly thought out. His words certainly appear to
bear a communistic sense; but it is quite plain that this was not the
intention of the writer. He defends Plato at some length against the
criticism of Aristotle, but only on the ground that the disciple
misunderstood the master: "for I do not think Socrates to have so
intended, but only to have had the true catholic idea that each should
have the use of what belongs to his brother" (_De Civili Dominio_,
London, 1884-1904, vol. i. p. 99). And just a few lines farther on he
adds, "But whether Socrates understood this or not, I shall not further
question. This only I know, that by the law of charity every Christian
ought to have the just use of what belongs to his neighbour." What else
is this really but the teaching of Aristotle that there should be
"private property and common use"? It is, in fact, the very antithesis
of communism.
Some have thought that he was fettered in his language by his academic
position; but no Oxford don has ever said such hard things about his
Alma Mater as did this master of Balliol. "Universities," says he,
"houses of study, colleges, as well as degrees and masterships in them,
are vanities introduced by the heathen, and profit the Church as little
and as much as does Satan himself." Surely it were impossible to accuse
such a man of economy of language, and of being cowed by any University
fetish.
His words, we have noted above, certainly can bear the interpretation of
a very levelling philosophy. Even in his own generation he was accused
through his followers of having had a hand in instigating the revolt.
His reply was an angry expostulation (Trevelyan's _England in the Age of
Wycliff_, 1909, London, p. 201). Indeed, considering that John of Gaunt
was his best friend and protector, it would be foolish to connect
Wycliff with the Peasant Rising. The insurgents, in their hatred of
Gaunt, whom they looked upon as the cause of their oppression, made all
whom they met swear to have no king named John (_Chronicon Angliae_, p.
286). And John Ball, whom the author of the _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_ (p.
273, Roll Series, 1856, London) calls the "darling follower" of Wycliff,
can only be considered as such in his doctrinal teaching on the dogma of
the Real Presence. It must be remembered that to contemporary England
Wycliff's fame came from two of his opinions, viz. his denial of a real
objective Presence in the Mass (for Christ was there only by "ghostly
wit"), and his advice to King and Parliament to confiscate Church lands.
But whenever Ball or anyone else is accused of being a follower of
Wycliff, nothing else is probably referred to than the professor's
well-known opinion on the sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence it is that
the _Chronicon Angliae_ speaks of John Ball as having been imprisoned
earlier in life for his Wycliffite errors, which it calls simply
_perversa dogmata_. The "Morning Star of the Reformation" being
therefore declared innocent of complicity with the Peasant Revolt, it
is interesting to note to whom it is that he ascribes the whole force of
the rebellion. For him the head and front of all offending was the hated
friars.
Against this imputation the four Orders of friars (the Dominicans,
Franciscans, Augustinians, and Carmelites) issued a protest. Fortunately
in their spirited reply they give the reasons on account of which they
are supposed to have shared in the rising. These were principally
negative. Thus it was stated that their influence with the people was so
great that had they ventured to oppose the spirit of revolt their words
would have been listened to (_Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, p. 293). The
chronicler of St. Albans is equally convinced of their weakness in not
preventing it, and declares that the flattery which they used alike on
rich and poor had also no mean share in producing the social unrest
(_Chronicon Angliae_, p. 312). Langland also, in his "Vision of Piers
Plowman," goes out of his way to denounce them for their levelling
doctrines:
"Envy heard this and bade friars go to school,
And learn logic and law and eke contemplation,
And preach men of Plato and prove it by Seneca
That all things under Heaven ought to be in common,
And yet he lieth, as I live, and to the lewd so preacheth
For God made to men a law and Moses it taught--
_Non concupisces rem proximi tui_"
(Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods).
Here then it is distinctly asserted that the spread of communistic
doctrines was due to the friars. Moreover, the same popular opinion is
reflected in the fabricated confession of Jack Straw, for he is made to
declare that had the rebels been successful, all the monastic orders, as
well as the secular clergy, would have been put to death, and only the
friars would have been allowed to continue. Their numbers would have
sufficed for the spiritual needs of the whole kingdom (_Chronicon
Angliae_, p. 309). Moreover, it has been noticed that not a few of them
actually took part in the revolt, heading some of the bands of
countrymen who marched on London.
It will have been seen, therefore, that Communism was a favourite
rallying-cry throughout the Middle Ages for all those on whom the
oppression of the feudal yoke bore heavily. It was partly also a
religious ideal for some of the strange gnostic sects which flourished
at that era. Moreover, it was an efficient weapon when used as an
accusation, for Wycliff and the friars alike both dreaded its
imputation. Perhaps of all that period, John Ball alone held it
consistently and without shame. Eloquent in the way of popular appeal,
he manifestly endeavoured to force it as a social reform on the
peasantry, who were suffering under the intolerable grievance of the
Statutes of Labourers. But though he roused the countryside to his
following, and made the people for the first time a thing of dread to
nobles and King, it does not appear that his ideas spread much beyond
his immediate lieutenants. Just as in their petitions the rebels made no
doctrinal statements against Church teaching, nor any capital out of
heretical attacks (except, singularly enough, to accuse the Primate,
whom they subsequently put to death, of overmuch leniency to Lollards),
so, too, they made no reference to the central idea of Ball's social
theories. In fact, little abstract matter could well have appealed to
them. Concrete oppression was all they knew, and were this done away
with, it is evident that they would have been well content.
The case of the friars is curious. For though their superiors made many
attempts to prove their hostility to the rebels, it is evident that
their actual teaching was suspected by those in high places. It is the
exact reversal of the case of Wycliff. His views, which sounded so
favourable to communism, are found on examination to be really nothing
but a plea to leave things alone, "for the saints have now all they
would have"; while on the other hand the theories of the friars, in
themselves so logical and consistent, and in appearance obviously
conservative to the fullest extent, turn out to contain the germ of
revolution.
Said Lord Acton with his sober wit: "Not the devil, but St. Thomas
Aquinas, was the first Whig."
FOOTNOTE:
[1] This rhyme is of course much older than John Ball; _cf._ Richard
Rolle (1300-1349), i. 73, London, 1895.