The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. XIV]

The maps, drawn by Dr. H.F.J. Lansink O. Carm., have the sole purpose of helping the reader to localize the many monasteries and convents referred to in the text.
The particular spelling of placenames does not claim to be authoritative or definitive. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the object of this book is to give a history of the Modern Devotion as a whole, and not of individual houses, monasteries and convents.

[p. 1]

Introduction

A considerable influence has long been attributed to the Devotio Moderna, that is to Geert Groote and his followers. It is thought to have been exercised, not only on the ideas and practices of many contemporaries, but to have continued throughout the whole of the fifteenth and part of the sixteenth centuries. The Devotionalists would then have contributed to the rise of Humanism, or at least to its dissemination in the first phase north of the Alps and, still more, to the origin and progress of the Reformation.

It is not in itself strange that Humanism and Reformation should be linked with the Devotio Moderna. Many indeed perceive related trends in Humanism and Reformation, and Luther in the beginning undoubtedly received much support and approbation from the German Humanists.

The inter-relationship of Humanism and the Reformation and that of the Devotio Moderna to both are two weighty problems which cannot be resolved by general reasoning. This reasoning must be supported by facts. There are not only isolated studies which are devoted to resolving the problem of Devotio Moderna and Humanism. Every writer who examines the history of the origin, progress and nature of Humanism, is compelled to tackle this problem and usually concludes, or at least asserts that the Devotio Moderna and notably the Brethren of the Common Life, fostered the rise of Humanism.

To illustrate this point further, I should like to refer to the works of a German, a Frenchman and an American: Paul Mestwerdt, Bonet Maury and A. Hyma, as well as to a few more recent authors who rely for the greater part on the above mentioned, or at least share their opinions. Mestwerdt examines this question penetratingly and in detail in his work Die Anfänge des Erasmus. Humanismus und ‘Devotio Moderna,’¹ Leipzig 1917. The author, then a young and promising scholar, soon to fall a victim of the first World War, devotes a large section of his work to this problem. He explores the philosophical, theological and cultural-historical aspects, but his work, in my opinion could profitably be more concrete and factual.

In order to illustrate more clearly the distinctive character of

1 Ed. by Hans von Schicbert.

[p. 2]

Humanism as it developed north of the Alps, he first describes the attitude of the Italian Humanists to the classical culture and to the Church and religion. He refers in this connection to concepts which were later found also in the north, but is none the less of the opinion that the phenomenon Humanism displays different aspects above the Alps. This is due in part to its connection with the Devotio Moderna, which exercised considerable influence upon the origins and first development of the ‘German’ Humanists and notably of Erasmus.

Describing the Devotio Moderna, he first draws attention to an important aspect of its origin; the reaction against the unorthodox concepts obtaining among various Beguines in the South Netherlands and in the Rhineland. This would also largely serve to explain Geert Groote's heresy hunt. He also attributes to it the persisting dogmatic sensitivity which, despite the name Devotio Moderna, must be termed conservative Catholic. He then goes on to outline the character of the religiosity of this movement, aided mainly by texts from Thomas a Kempis. The emphasis on ethical requirements leads to the rejection of any intellectual speculation.¹ The Devotionalists have a fides simplex, acknowledge the power of grace, but deny man any possibility at all of contributing to his own salvation. Their concept of the sacraments diverges from the Catholic doctrine. The sacrament of the Eucharist is so spiritualized that a ‘spiritual communion’ has the same effect as actual physical reception.²

Man, finally, is thrown back upon himself. There is a pronounced personalistic and voluntaristic trend in their piety³ ‘Das ergibt aber eine innere Bewusstseinsstellung, die dem Ideal der stoischen Ethik aufs engste verwandt ist. Die Vollkommene Devote ist zugleich das Bild der vollendeten stoischen Weisen.’⁴ A few texts and statements show the permeation of classical philosophical ideas, notably of Seneca, who is repeatedly quoted by Geert Groote.⁵ These ideas constitute a preliminary stage of the more independent and immediate appreciation of non-christian morality which was to be clearly evident in the full flourishing of Humanism.⁶

Mestwerdt then goes on to describe the place of the Devotio Moderna in the current theological conflict between the Realists and the Nominalists, the old way and the new. In actual fact the Devotionalists took up no clearly defined position. In spite of a few Nominalists,

1 Mestwerdt 89.

2 Ibid., 91-92.

3 Ibid., 100.

4 Ibid., 93.

5 Ibid., 57ff.

6 Ibid., 99.

[p. 3]

the movement ended in the dominance of realism with Alexander Hegius, the rector of the Latin school of Deventer. But even before he had accepted the rectorship, Ockhamist logic was taught in the school of this city, ‘wo der Unterricht wesentlich in den Händen der Brüder v.g. Leben lag.’¹ There are other indications too of a connection between the Devotio Moderna and the adherents of the via Moderna: the printing of a book by P. d'Ailly on the Brethren's presses in Brussels, the studies of some of the Brethren in Prague, the sympathy of John Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel for the Devotionalists.² Yet it is impossible to determine their own distinct theological trend from their position within the theological conflict. They had links with both sides.³ They held aloof from the two extremes and can be credited only perhaps with a certain naive realism.⁴ As a result of this, their positive achievement in the domain of theology proper is but slight.⁵ We must make an exception here for John Pupper of Goch and Wessel Gansfort, for the former rejected philosophy and scholastic theology while the latter considered himself a Nominalist.⁶ Lack of a clearly defined theology led to Biblicism. The Devotionalists copied and printed the Bible, emended the Bible text and applied their piety directly to the context of the Holy Scriptures.⁷ Groote recognized in addition patristic and scholastic books. John Pupper ceased to do so.⁸

Although it was easier for a layman to enter the community of the Brothers than a monastery, there was no desire at all to reform political, social or economic conditions.⁹ For them the aurea mediocritas was an ideal, and despite their criticism of the moral state of the clergy and of the non-reformed orders, they were preoccupied with their own aims. This explains their willingness to accept the clerical and monastic rules.¹⁰ Mestwerdt sees in the Devotio a ‘stärkere Anpassung an die Bedürfnisse der Laienwelt. Sie geht auf einen zwar immer bedingten, dennoch praktisch hoechst bedeutungsvollen Ausgleich des Christentums mit den Forderungen einer fortschreitenden und in höherem Grade weltlichen Geisteskultur.’¹¹ A related theme here is their attitude to the monasteries and to monastics. The known opposition of some Dominicans; on the other hand the foundation of Windesheim; the easy transition from Brotherhouse to monastery and, contrariwise the opposition shown by the

1 Mestwerdt, 107.

2 Ibid., 109.

3 Ibid., 109.

4 Ibid., 111.

5 Ibid., 114.

6 Ibid., 116.

7 Ibid., 118-119.

8 Ibid., 120-121.

9 Ibid., 123.

10 Ibid., 125.

11 Ibid., 128-129.

[p. 4]

rector of the Deventer Brethren, Egbert ter Beek - ‘bis zu Hegius' Ankunft, Leiter der dortigen Kapittelschule, wie Allen vermutet,’¹ are all discussed here. There is one essential difference between the Devotionalists and the monks. The Brethren were not bound by vows, but were committed to work² and to pastoral duties. The contrast between monks and Devotionalists was clearly set out by the rector of Hildesheim, Peter of Diepburch, and above all by John Pupper of Goch.³ So far as the ‘Tätigkeit der Volkserziehung und Volksbildung’ is concerned it appears that Mestwerdt is aware of the existing controversy over the question of to what extent the Brethren actually taught. He knows that, in the period before 1917, serious doubt had arisen concerning the part played by the Brethren of the Common Life in teaching. This is obviously of decisive importance for the question of the Devotionalists' contribution to the rise and first development of Humanism in the North. He quotes the usual arguments in favour: the statement of the Brethren sent from Zwolle to Culm in 1472 who countered opposition by saying: ad profectum juvenum vestrorum in scientiis et virtutibus venimus prout sumus et vivimus in diocesi Trajectensi.⁴ He also points out the close relations which existed between the Brethren and the public educational institutions and the founding or direction of schools in various places, including 's-Hertogenbosch, Liège, Utrecht, Brussels, Ghent, Groningen, Amersfoort, Gouda and Harderwijk.⁵

In order to resolve the problems of the attitude of the Devotio Moderna to education he refers in addition to the christian-moralist element in the Brethrens' teaching.⁶ He refers to their libraries, to their ‘Arbeitsfreudigkeit’, to their textual criticism, to the many editions of classical authors at Deventer but not in his opinion in Brussels. He remarks on the speedy adoption of Humanism by institutions⁷ either directed or influenced by the Devotionalists notably in Deventer (under John Synthis and Alexander Hegius), to the use of humanistic grammars and schoolbooks and to a testimony of Melanchthon.

In Mestwerdt's opinion too, this influence was not confined to the introduction of Greek and a more classical Latin. There was also the adoption of a whole attitude of mind. He sees at least various points of contact between the religious ideal of the Humanists and that of the Devotionalists.⁸

1 Mestwerdt, 131.

2 Ibid., 132-133.

3 Ibid., 136-137.

4 Ibid., 138.

5 Ibid., 139-140.

6 Ibid., 141.

7 Ibid., 144.

8 Ibid., 147.

[p. 5]

Both movements strive to counter the stagnation of Christianity either by combatting those organs within the Church which tended increasingly to render religious life more materialistic or more a question of externals, or by infusing the complicated system of her theology with the vital force of a spiritual and personal religious feeling.¹ In both movements the growing individualism, expressed in the relative indifference towards the sacrament, the priesthood and monastic life, is accompanied by a strong emphasis on the moralistic character of the Christian religion. The parallels are quoted here of the classical, notably the platonic and late-stoic ethic, although the emphasis is different.²

It is clear that he considers it important to stress that religious experience to the Devotionalists was a personal and individual thing and that their attitude to the sacrament, the priesthood and monastic life was one of indifference. If this was indeed so, it would already facilitate the entry of the later Humanists to the houses of the Devotionalists. The latter, even though they had no schools, or any influence in the schools would already have been able to extol the forms of modern culture among the people in their preaching and pastoral work. With Mestwerdt thus, the disputed question of the Brethren's influence on education is of secondary importance.

‘Das Gesagte ist zunächst nur eine Konstruktion.’³ In order to show the historical basis of this statement, he goes on to describe the humanistic religiosity of Alexander Hegius and Rudolf Agricola.⁴ He discusses Hegius' career and task.⁵ Hegius was a pious school rector who appreciated Valla's work: Opus de vero bono and regarded ‘felicitas’ as the most natural and highest goal of human actions.⁶

Agricola's life and work had scarcely any contact with the Devotio, unless one considers as such his education at the school of St. Maarten in Groningen, the meetings at Aduard around 1480 and the friendship with Wessel Gansfort.⁷ Although even before Erasmus the Humanistic world of ideas impinged with Agricola upon the visible field of piety in the Netherlands - not only in the formal return to the ancient sources but also in the positive ideals of the Humanistic motives which in particular involved infusing the spiritual values of the religious life with the active creative powers of human nature, fashioned after God's

1 Mestwerdt, 147.

2 Ibid., 147.

3 Ibid., 148.

4 Ibid., 149.

5 Ibid., 150-151.

6 Ibid., 156.

7 Ibid., 157.

[p. 6]

image, - he did not formulate any concrete directives for the further development of the plan to reform Christianity. His piety was of a more general and traditional character and ‘verrät nicht entfernt den Reichtum der in die Devotio moderna von Groote bis Goch und Wessel entwickelten eigenartigen Gedanken.’¹

These latter exercised a much greater influence on Erasmus: ‘Es ist ihr allgemeinster Einfluss auf Erasmus, dass das Christliche d.h. die Beschäftigung mit Christlichen Stoffen, d.h. mit den Problemen des christlichen Gedankens und der christlichen Gesellschaftsordnung zeitlebens bei ihm eine grössere Rolle spielte, als bei zahlreichen seines humanischen Gesinnungsgenossen. In der Form, wie sie ihm entgegen trat, hat Erasmus die devotio moderna freilich abgelehnt.’² In the first chapter of Part II (Die Anfänge des Erasmus) Mestwerdt deals with Schule und Kloster. It is an important exposition, based on all known data from Erasmus' letters and books, but depends too much on the mistaken idea that education was in the hands of the members of the Devotio Moderna. Apart from various minor points he deals excellently with Erasmus³ study of Valla, the Antibarbari, the Christian religious poems in contrast with the letters⁴ and especially with the De contemptu mundi.

We shall have to examine Mestwerdt's (for the most part brilliant) conclusions in more detail. It is sufficient here to mention a few general reservations with regard to these conclusions.

In the first place he gives no indication of who actually belonged to the Devotio Moderna. He employs the writings of mystics, Geert Groote, Thomas a Kempis, the chronicler of the Brotherhouse at Zwolle, James de Voecht (or Traiecti), Peter of Diepburch, Wessel Gansfort and John Pupper of Goch to describe the ideas of the Devotio, and then applies the whole to the Brethren of the Common Life of Deventer, ca 1480. He does not pause to inquire if these last in particular can be counted among the Devotionalists, or whether their ideas were shared by the Brethren of Deventer, (the city where Hegius was to teach and Erasmus received his education), not to mention the Brethren of 's-Hertogenbosch. There are no possible grounds for supposing that they even knew the works of John Pupper of Goch, still less that they studied them or assimilated them. He was, moreover, a secular priest and not a Brother of the Common Life at all (see chapter X).

Can the Devotio Moderna be termed anti-monachal, when the great

1 Mestwerdt, 173.

2 Ibid., 174.

3 Ibid., 207.

4 Ibid., 213.

[p. 7]

majority of the open supporters of this movement were monasteries and to judge from the expansion of their congregations and publications displayed great vitality, even during the rise of Humanism in the Netherlands and in Germany? I am alluding here naturally to the Windesheimers, but in a certain respect one may also consider as Devotionalists the numerous convents which adopted the rule of St. Francis or of St. Augustine before 1480 and supplanted nearly everywhere the Sisters of the Common Life.

I am also inclined to wonder whether, in assessing texts from the Imitation, one should not always bear in mind that Thomas a Kempis was a monk, and not a Brother of the Common Life, as Mestwerdt seems to assume.

It also seems to me a mistake to take too rigid a view of the Devotio Moderna. It is surely rash to assume that the ideals formulated by the founders Geert Groote, Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt were still being applied and practised by the Brethren who lived a century later. The history of the Dominicans, Franciscans and Jesuits shows that development does take place within monastic orders or similar institutions. Even in the late Middle Ages a century lasted a hundred years. It seems to me irresponsible, from a historical point of view, to equate the ideas and way of life of the Brethren of the last quarter of the 15th century with the ideals expressed in Groote's writings and letters. Groote for instance was a book lover, a well read and scholarly man, whereas none of the Brethren was ever sent to the University.

Mestwerdt in addition has a vague and even inaccurate idea of the conditions existing in late-medieval education in this particular field. Even his repeated reference to schools conducted or influenced by the Brethren is misleading. By adding the word ‘influenced’ he can greatly increase the number of schools which had any contact with the Brethren, but he should indicate at the same time of what exactly this influence consisted. Was it an educational influence, or the spiritual direction of the scholars or was it merely a friendship with the school rector? It would be important too to establish the duration of such influence. All this would have to be investigated and set down to render Mestwerdt's conclusions in any way tenable.

The Modern Devotionalists did not live in a vacuum. Outside them were the so-called mendicant orders - Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustine hermits, which sent several of their members to a University, had more contacts with Italy and France than the Brethren of the Common Life, and also showed more interest in study.

[p. 8]

The fact that they were called, and were in fact mendicant orders, does not mean that they did no work. Outside them too were the secular priests, some of whom were University-trained. Did they not practise piety? Or were they, in contrast to the Devotionalists, completely external and formalistic? Had not then the Windesheimers a more solemn choir than the mendicant friars? Did not the Brethren of the Common Life pray their breviary? It does not do to regard every expression of piety in the late Middle Ages as denoting a link with the Modern Devotionalists. In comparison with these groups the Brethren of various towns formed retired, petty-bourgeois, ill-lettered and cloistered communities. Their attitude to schools and education will also be described as well as possible in this book. We merely wish to state at this point that educational institutions existed in towns where the Brethren did not live - in Arnhem, Zutphen, Alkmaar, Amsterdam, Leiden, Dordrecht, Rotterdam, Roermond, Breda and Maastricht - to name but a few. We shall deal later with the question of whether the school of Deventer taught Humanism earlier than all the others. Even if the answer is affirmative, the question then arises as to how far the Brothers were concerned in the teaching or in the conduct of the chapter school.

The fact that the Devotionalists (Mestwerdt refers chiefly to the Brothers) remained impartial in the theologians' conflict concerning the via antiqua and the via moderna may be explained by their lack of interest in academic theology. The training of their future priests was completely a family affair with no interference from outside. Although we now have reason enough to doubt Mestwerdt's conclusions, even without being acquainted with all the details, the scholars of Germanic Humanism and of Erasmus, usually accept the nucleus of his ideas. They agree that the Devotionalists, confined to the Brethren of the Common Life, furthered the rise of Humanism.

I quote in example the recent book of Lewis W. Spitz ‘The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists’¹ written in English by an American in Germany. It deals with the German Humanists and relies mainly on sources preserved in Germany. The book may serve as an example since I consider it an excellent achievement, being as factual as possible and written by a man whose religious ideas accord more closely with those of Mestwerdt than with mine.

While rejecting A. Hyma's theory of the influence of the Devotio

1 Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts 1963.

[p. 9]

Moderna on the rise of Humanism, he does recognize that this influence existed.¹ The Modern Devotionalists exercised it on nearly every Humanist.² By Devotionalists he again means the Brethren, who possessed an ever deepening inwardness of faith coupled with self-knowledge, and led practical Christian lives. Their spiritualistic stress on religiosity and their almost stoical ethical standards led them to minimalize the effectiveness of the sacraments as channels of grace and of the church as the instrument of salvation.³

Their influence was widespread. It is noted that they established schools, hospices for poor students in University towns and printing presses for constructive devotional literature. Among the famous men of the time directly educated or supported by them were Cusanus, Agricola, Celtis, Mutian, Johannes Murmellius, Herman van der Busche, Erasmus and Luther. Their importance for German humanism was great indeed, even though that importance was greatly exaggerated by some historians.⁴ This last phrase leaves him a loophole. The exaggeration of his own statement may already be judged from the fact that, of all the University towns, the Brethren had hospices only in Cologne and for a very short time in Louvain and Trèves (not in Paris, Heidelberg, Prague or Vienna!). It is also certain that several of the persons mentioned were neither educated nor supported by the Brethren. In Luther's case the statement may be assumed correct, for he stayed in the house at Magdeburg. So far as the others are concerned it is based on the false assumption that the school in Deventer was run by the Brothers.

Like Mestwerdt, and probably on the basis of his book, Spitz regards the similarity of aims and ideas of the Brethren and of the first Humanists as denoting a relationship between the two groups. He stresses the Germanic mysticism and voluntary striving after spirituality of the devotionalists. Their piety situates man immediately before the ineffable God and emphasises the inner depth of the religious experience.⁵ This was not only a negative reaction against the formalism of belief in dogma and in ecclesiastical ceremonies, but a positive power and an expression of the religious feeling widespread among the laity. They sought the fulfilment of the human striving for perfection in divine grace and in the example of Christ. They stressed not sin and redemption but practical piety. The three leading figures of

1 Spitz, 7.

2 Ibid., 8.

3 Ibid., 8.

4 Ibid., 8.

5 Ibid., 8.

[p. 10]

15th century German mysticism - John Pupper of Goch, John of Wesel and Wessel Gansfort ‘stood in the Dominican neo-Platonic tradition.’¹

I am not clear about the meaning of this last remark in this context, but it is striking that Spitz evidently considers these three as in some way characteristic of the Devotio Moderna. In this he is following in the train of Mestwerdt.

After this general introduction in which he repeats that Nicolas van Cusa was educated by the Brethren of the Common Life and was a cultural symbol for the Germans, he deals separately with the first Humanists - Rudolf Agricola, Jacob Wimpfeling, John Reuchlin, Conrad Celtis, Ulrich von Hutten, Conrad Mutian, Willibald Pirckheimer, Desiderius Erasmus and Martin Luther. With the exception of Reuchlin, Celtis, von Hutten and Pirckheimer, all these, according to Spitz, owed their education and training in some measure to the Devotio Moderna. With Agricola this amounts to the fact that he attended the school of St. Maarten in Groningen, which was ‘under the influence of the Common Life.’² This is not true or at least has no significance. Moreover, Agricola was a moderate realist, in line with the tacit assumption of the Brethren of the Common Life.³ Even if we accept this statement, derived from Mestwerdt, it still does not prove any mutual influence. Agricola may have acquired his moderate and mild wisdom anywhere. The same may be said of the practical Christian piety of the Brethren of the Common Life, whose influence he is supposed to have felt.⁴ And there is another matter. ‘At this point too, there was a easy coincidence of the quasi-stoical teachings of the Brethren of the Common Life, among whom Seneca was a favourite author, and the moral emphasis of the literary humanists.’⁵ Was there a teaching by the Brethren and if so were they more inclined to Seneca than the other teachers? Or did they take Christ as their model as the Imitation desires. The Brethren's material for meditation was so directed.

Resuming his study of Agricola Spitz says of him, that ‘he stood with deep roots in the piety of the Brethren of the Common Life.’⁶ In his person he showed how the basically non-speculative but practical and stoic-moralistic aspects of the Devotio Moderna could be reconciled with what he had learned from the pious Italian masters.⁷

1 Spitz, 8.

2 Ibid., 22.

3 Ibid., 26.

4 Ibid., 31.

5 Ibid., 33.

6 Ibid., 39.

7 Ibid., 39.

[p. 11]

Spitz moreover attributes Agricola's enthusiasm for classical scholarship, acquired in Italy, to the Brethren of the Common Life in the person of the more conservative Hegius, the great teacher of Erasmus.¹ This seems to be an echo of Mestwerdt, but it is difficult to reconcile Hegius in this manner with the Brethren of Deventer. In any case Erasmus only knew him for a short time as rector of the school and was taught by him hardly at all as we shall later see.

According to Spitz's thesis Wimpfeling's contact with the Brethren was only oblique. In his birthplace he followed the lessons of Ludwig Dringenberg who had attended school in Deventer and who stressed ethical and religious training in the best traditions of the Brethren of the Common Life.² To this indirect contact one must presumably attribute the fact that ‘his educational goal, like that of Gerard Groote was ethical and not eloquence.’³ Furthermore, ‘he laboured for educational reform, but within the safe outline prescribed by the Devotio Moderna.’⁴ And thus a school rector's aims are transformed first into the ideals of the Brethren of Deventer and then suddenly into those of the entire Devotio Moderna!

Mutian (Conrad, Mutianus, Rufus born 1471 at Homberg) studied from 1481 to 1486 at ‘the school of the Brethren of the Common Life at Deventer.’⁵ He was thus acquainted with the pietas of the Devotio Moderna⁶ ‘with its mystic traditions, piety, and biblicism of the via Moderna’ and underwent in addition the influence of the philosophical theologians of Florence.⁷

The legend that the school of Deventer was an institution of the Brethren dies hard! I shall later (page 163) show that the via Moderna was already rejected by Geert Groote.

Next we have Erasmus. ‘Under the influence of the Brethren of the Common Life at Deventer and at 's-Hertogenbosch from 1475 till 1486, the formative years, Erasmus (born 1469) absorbed both the religious views of the Devotio Moderna and the classical interest of Hegius and his colleagues.⁸ Religiously this meant an emphasis on the simplicity of truth, the spirituality and inwardness of the religious life and the imitation of Christ.’⁹ Apart from Erasmus' stay in 's-Hertogenbosch, the question once again arises - was it really so? Had Erasmus

1 Spitz, 40.

2 Ibid., 42.

3 Ibid., 51.

4 Ibid., 59.

5 Ibid., 131-132.

6 Ibid., 135.

7 Ibid., 131.

8 Ibid., 199.

9 Ibid., 199.

[p. 12]

so much contact with the Brethren in Deventer that he absorbed the religious characteristics attributed to the Devotio Moderna? The school was not run by the Brethren and if he did stay with them it was only for a short period (see chapter IX).

Concerning Luther Spitz poses the question: What was the nature of the Brethren's influence? Luther's contacts with the Brethren should make this clear. These contacts began in Magdeburg, where the Brethren ran one of the schools and where Luther was a pupil.¹ He read the writings of John Mombaer, Ludolf of Saxony, Gerard Zerbold of Zutphen, of Wessel Gansfort, John Pupper of Goch, and Gabriel Biel, rector of the Brethren of Butzbach.² Luther praised the constructive work of the Brethren. He opposed them only once (over the printing of the Bible at Rostock).³ Luther was indeed a many-sided and well-read man. Even though his acquaintance with the Magdeburg Brethren was brief, he would easily have been able to grasp the Devotio Moderna, assuming all the writers mentioned to be Devotionalists. The fact is, however, that he did not read Wessel Gansfort and John Pupper until he had already completely formed his new theology. He was thus in no way influenced by the Devotio Moderna, despite the influence of Gabriel Biel. Although the latter entered a chapter-house which had adopted the communal life, this does not imply that he impressed his nominalist stamp on all the Brethren. Not all the Magdeburgers necessarily thought like Biel and influenced the very young Luther. Luther admittedly studied Gabriel Biel's books in principle and was brought up in an atmosphere of moderate nominalism. His real development, however, was achieved painstakingly and independently and was not influenced by the Devotio Moderna, no matter how broadly one understands the term. His piety too was acquired at home and in his monastery and also from Tauler and the ‘theologia Deutsch’ who can scarcely be classed with the Devotio Moderna.

Of the early Humanists studied by Spitz only two appear to have had any contact of importance with the Devotio Moderna, namely Erasmus and Luther. Agricola, Wimpfeling and Mutian may have absorbed a little influence from a distance. Yet not only these, but also Reuchlin, Celtis, Hutten and Pirckheimer were well-known Humanists. It was thus possible, at the end of the 15th century north of the Alps,

1 Spitz, 199.

2 Ibid., 239.

3 Ibid., 239.

[p. 13]

to become a Humanist without the influence of the Devotio Moderna, without contact with the Brethren. It was even possible to have ideas which were ascribed to the Devotio Moderna and even to the Brethren.

In Paris in 1889 the doctor of theology G. Bonet-Maury¹ published a work on the educational work done by the Brethren of the Common Life in the Netherlands. This dissertation maintains the tradition (contested by Karl Hirsch among others) that the Brethren of the Common Life were principally teachers. Not only did they found various schools, they also greatly improved the teaching standards, lightened the lot of poor scholars and applied the educational theories current among the first Humanists. If the main part of this were true, the Brethren could rightly be termed the pioneers of Humanism in the Netherlands.

It is important to note that the writer confines himself to the Brethren and does not consider the entire Devotio Moderna, with its hazy limits, as participating in the work of instruction and education. This however tends to undermine the foundations of the argument that the ideas of Wessel Gansfort and John Pupper were propagated in the schools, since neither of these belonged to the Brethren. Bonet-Maury, however, does show a good grasp of one point. The Brethren's interest in education and their work in the schools did not remain constant. An important development took place. He distinguishes 3 phases; phase I from 1381 to 1400, which he calls the aetas mystica, in which only books were written and hostels opened. Phase II lasts from 1400 to 1505. A few Brethren began to instruct boys who later became school rectors - a sort of private education thus. During phase III, from 1505 to 1600, some of the Brethren's pupils won fame as pioneers of the Renaissance. These began zealously to give instruction in the classics and transformed the formerly undistinguished schools into gymnasia.² There was indeed a development but it does not coincide directly with this scheme. If the third period only began in 1505, it was not the Brethren who propagated Humanism, but rather those who had adopted the new culture from others. For the rest, this is the only part of the book of any value.

With the aid of a few statements by 16th century Humanists concerning the education of the Brethren, the writer attempts to prove

1 G. Bonet-Maury: De opera scolastica fratrum vitae communis in Nederlandia, Lutetiae Parisiorum 1889.

2 G. Bonet-Maury 3.

[p. 14]

his theory, as though the Brethren were principally teachers, reformers of the educational system and pioneers of Humanism. The interpretation of these texts is not always certain. In any case they are valid only for their own period and usually at a distance. Maury's remarks on the individual houses and schools are little short of preposterous. Data which he did not possess have given a completely different picture on this point and brought completely new facts to light. He does not distinguish sufficiently between the work of the Brethren and the task of the teachers, nor between the hospitia of the Brethren and those of Standonck. He is unreliable too concerning the people who are supposed to have studied in the various schools of the Brethren. All this will be made clear as we go deeper into their history. I should indeed refrain from quoting this old book were it not still used as a reference work by various new French authors. August Renaudet, in his famous Préréforme et Humanisme à Paris,¹ seems not entirely free from this opinion, although generally speaking he correctly evaluates the significance of the Windesheimers and the Brethren. He quite simply assumes, however, that the schools in the Netherlands, notably those of Deventer, Gouda and Zwolle, belonged to the Brethren, or at least that they were in charge of the teaching there. Every time he mentions the school-days of someone who is later connected in some way or other with the Préréforme et Humanisme in Paris and who went to school in the Netherlands, he speaks either of the teaching or of the influence of the Brethren. For example: Jean Wessel Gansfort, écolier à Zwolle chez les frères de la vie Commune²; Jean Standonck (avait) suivi les leçons des Frères de la vie Commune³ or le disciple des Frères de la Vie Commune⁴; Thomas Hemerken à Kempen... suivit, au college de St. Lebuin à Deventer, les leçons des Frères de la vie Commune.⁵ Erasme, entré vers 1475 au collège de Saint-Lebuin de Deventer, il y subit comme Jean Standonck chez les Frères de Gouda, la dure discipline de la dévotion moderne.⁶

These texts are sufficient to show the opinion held by M. Renaudet. Even more plainly and expressly indebted to Bonet-Maury are the authors of the recently published (1964) fourteenth volume of the Histoire de L'église (A. Fliche and N. Martin), especially when dealing with the schools and the Brethren. They call Bonet-Maury's book ‘le travail essentiel,’ and adopt his expression ‘après l'âge mystique, l'âge

1 Parijs² 1953.

2 Ibid., 82.

3 Ibid., 174.

4 Ibid., 182.

5 Ibid., 216.

6 Ibid., 261.

[p. 15]

scolaire’¹ Bonet-Maury is the author ‘dont nous allons désormais suivre le livre’.² They were thus led astray and arrive at a completely wrong conclusion. ‘In the Netherlands alone there were soon twenty schools. It is easy to understand how the Brethren received the name Fratres scolares. Sometimes these schools existed before the coming of the Brethren. On taking them over they infused into their teaching and training a new spirit and a devotion which obtained for them remarkable success.’³ This is an tissue of generalities and inaccuracies, without dates or places. The authors continue thus for some time to dispense inaccurate information - that the Brethren gave popular instruction to pauperes scolares, and that some of their schools contained several hundred pupils.⁴

The excerpts given here from a few modern French authors are, it would seem, sufficient to show the necessity for a new examination of the question, and a description of the spiritual situation based on concrete facts.

In America Albert Hyma, a professor at the University of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has written two books on the question under discussion: the first, The Christian Renaissance, a history of the Devotio Moderna,⁵ has all the qualities of a work of scholarship. The second is: The Brethren of the Common Life.⁶ As may be deduced from the title he sees the Devotio Moderna as a renaissance, a rebirth of Christian Life. In the fourteenth century this life had either disappeared or was in extremis, until Geert Groote and his disciples, the Brethren of the Common Life, revived and reanimated the Christian idea. At the same time they zealously applied the principles of Christianity. This revival or its consequences lived on in the 15th century, found supporters outside the Netherlands, in the German Empire and in France and came to be known as the Devotio Moderna.

The Brethren extended education, introduced new teaching methods and thus prepared people's minds for Humanism which, though it came from the South to the North, was accepted there by the schools and educational institutions. Humanism was animated by the Brethren

1 Paris 1964, 928, 29.

2 Ibid., 929 no. 32.

3 Ibid., 929.

4 Ibid., 929.

5 The Reformed press. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1924. Also M. Nijhoff, Den Haag.

6 Grand Rapids 1950.

[p. 16]

and the rectors of the schools. They fostered it and helped to spread it further. From the Devotio Moderna Humanism received its Christian Biblical character as it is displayed north of the Alps by Hegius, Agricola, Erasmus and others. It was thus also a rebirth of Christianity, a Christian Renaissance. In this Renaissance he also includes the Reformation, notably Lutheranism, since Luther's main theses corresponded to the teaching of the Groningen scholar Wessel Gansfort, a product of the Brethren's system of education. Luther said as much in the introduction to the edition of Gansfort's works in 1525. The Swiss Reformers, in particular Zwingli and Calvin, received their communion doctrine from the Netherlands, that is, the doctrine which Cornelis Hoen had derived from a letter of Wessel Gansfort, and which the Rector of the Brotherhouse of Utrecht, Hinne Rode, had transmitted to Oecolampadius and Zwingli in Switzerland. The 16th century revival of Catholicism, the so-called Counter-Reformation, also owes much to the Devotio Moderna. It might even be termed a direct continuation of it.

This remarkable and interesting opinion imparts to the Devotio Moderna a world-historical significance. It gave rise to the Christian Humanism north of the Alps, improved education and caused the counter-Reformation. Flattering though this theory may be for the Low Countries I am obliged to reject it, since it is based on various unfounded or inaccurate assumptions. In the first place Hyma has not enquired who actually formed part of the Devotio Moderna. In his opinion one must include not only Geert Groote, the Brethren of the Common Life, the Windesheimers, but also school rectors like John Cele and Alexander Hegius, and the friends who met together in the monastery of Aduard between 1480 and 1485. In addition he names theologians such as Wessel Gansfort and John Pupper of Goch and Humanists like Agricola and Erasmus.

There exist indeed various grounds for including several of the above-mentioned in the Devotio Moderna, and especially Wessel Gansfort. Erasmus may be accounted a friend and disciple. One should not forget however, that after leaving Zwolle Gansfort studied and taught for twenty-five years at various universities. All his ideas thus cannot be attributed to the Brethren (see further chap. X). Hyma considered the schools of Zwolle and Deventer to be no longer schools of the Brethren, yet repeatedly attributed any good that came out of them to the Brothers. Moreover, he assumes that the Brethren ran or directed schools in various other cities without adequately having studied

[p. 17]

or examined this question. He bases his arguments too on the faulty data of Bonet-Maury. It is also remarkable how this learned writer assumes that nothing existed or happened outside the Devotionalists. He ignores the fact that, in the 14th and 15th centuries, universities were founded in many towns. Here all sorts of persons taught and did scholarly work with no help at all from the Brethren of the Common Life. He also passes over in silence the rise of an observance-movement in various orders - by no means always through the intermediary of the Devotionalists, although the Windesheimers achieved a great deal outside their own congregation. He leaves out of consideration too the fact that fairly flourishing schools existed in several Netherlandish and in even more ‘foreign’ towns where the Brethren had ‘überhaupt’ no settlement. One thinks, for example, of Alkmaar.

Hyma also assumes that no piety or even inward meditation existed outside the circles of the Devotio. He does not wonder whether the Brethren of 1480, when the first signs of Humanism became manifest in this region, held the same ideas as at the foundation, which could thus partly be described with ideas set down by Groote himself in his books and letters. Neither Hyma nor anyone else thought of asking what training the Brethren themselves had enjoyed. It is plain from all this that much research remains to be done on this point. Too many things are too easily attributed to the Brethren, because not enough is known about them.

Much less ambitious is Hyma's second book on this subject, i.e. The Brethren of the Common Life.¹ It consists of five chapters, on Geert Groote, on the rise of the Devotio Moderna, on the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, on the congregation of Windesheim and on the earliest version of the ‘Imitation of Christ.’ These are all subjects with which he is familiar and on which he gives a variety of important details, without altering in principle the opinion expressed in the first book.

We do, however, find another opinion in the work of William Spoelhof who obtained his doctorate in 1946 at the University of Michigan, under Professor Hyma one assumes, with the still unprinted thesis Concepts of religious nonconformity and religious toleration as developed by the Brethren of the Common Life in the Netherlands, 1374-1489. The writer, who sent me this typed book of 306 pages, has really broken

1 Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1950.

[p. 18]

new ground. It must also be mentioned that he has tried to support his arguments with numerous quotations from the authors he deals with. He thus shows that he has a thorough knowledge of the sources and literature of this subject and can make very good use of them. All assumptions concerning schools and teaching have now disappeared. He sketches the ideas of the ‘Brethren of the Common Life in the Netherlands’ in the domain of religious nonconformity and religious tolerance. He first describes the relationship between the mysticism of the Brethren and that of the Rhinelanders and Ruusbroec. Then he deals with the relationship of mysticism in general to the two problems, i.e. the easy attitude to the existing conformity, or lack of it, of their own religious concepts to those of the Church. This more or less indifferent attitude towards dogmas was the result of an attitude of tolerance towards the views of others. He then examines how these ideas appear in the work and concepts of Geert Groote, Florens Radewijns, Gerard Zerbolt, Henry Mande, Gerlach Peters, Wessel Gansfort and Thomas a Kempis.

It will immediately be remarked that, apart from the founder of the Devotio Moderna, only two of the persons mentioned belonged to the Brethren of the Common Life, i.e. Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt. Geert Groote might be numbered among the first group, although he was a man of broader allure that the first Brethren. His word was not confined to one house - he preached in several cities. Later we shall examine in more detail his activity in various domains. He was concerned not only with various local, regional and Netherland questions, but also with the great problem of his period, the Western Schism. Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt were also men of the first hour and belonged to the leaders of the house in Deventer. They worked principally for that house, although both fled Deventer in 1398 before the ravages of the plague. They lived for a time in Amersfoort and from there they established contact with friends in Utrecht, Amsterdam and Dikninge in defence of their institutions. Gerard Zerbold died as early as 1398 and Florens Radewijns followed him in 1400. They lived in the first period of enthusiasm, when the Brethren had no written rules or statutes.

Henry Mande, Gerlach Peters and Thomas a Kempis were all three Windesheimers, i.e. monastics who, unlike the Brethren, retired completely from the world and only exercised pastoral care among the members of their own monastery and congregation. They were bound by a strict organization with monastic rules and statutes. They

[p. 19]

were thus concerned with the peculiarities of the institution, the institutional character which, according to Spoelhof, by its very nature leads to conformism and intolerance. He gives two examples which show that this was indeed so among the Windesheimers. Among the decrees of the general chapter from 1387 to 1520, there is one, dating from 1455 and ratified in 1457, which betrays the beginnings of a spirit of intolerance towards the Sisters of the congregation of Windesheim. From then on none of the Sisters might write or have written a book about dogmas or prophecies and revelations.¹ The other decree dates from 1494, ratified in 1496. In four named places strong prisons were to be built, to incarcerate the fugitives who wished to leave the order (this in addition to the prisons within each particular monastery).² The first decree might also apply to the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life, but not the second. Fugitives (fugitivi(ae)) and apostates (apostatae) could not occur among the Brethren and Sisters since none of them had taken vows for life. The congregations of the Brethren lacked the institutional character of the Windesheimers. They also had an internal democratic system. The Brethren elected the Rector who, for the rest, had no official jurisdiction. His relationship to the rest of the Brethren was that of a headmaster to his pupils.³

Officially the Brethren had no fugitives or apostates, but the rectors sometimes had difficulties with disobedient Brethren or with persons who could not settle in their own house. Accommodation was sometimes found for these elsewhere. Sometimes, too, a person would leave, without breaking with the fraternity. Certain conditions were made on his return but we read nowhere of a prison.⁴

For the theme chosen by Spoelhof it was thus of importance to determine that the three Windesheimers in question had been admitted to the Brethren of the Common Life under Florens Radewijns before they entered the monastery (Windesheim or Agnietenberg). They thus entered the monastic state as Brethren. They had had the opportunity of reading, retaining and developing the nonconformity and tolerance attributed to the democratically organized Brethren. On these grounds Spoelhof considers the ideas of Henry Mande, Gerlach Peters and

1 W. Spoelhof, 20; Decreta capitulorum generalium congregationis Windeshemensis, ed. S. van der Woude, 's-Gravenhage 1953, 28.

2 Spoelhof 21; Decreta capitulorum 93.

3 See Fredericq: Corpus haereticae praevitatis II, 177.

4 Annalen und Akten der Brüder des gemeinsamen Lebens im Lichtenhofe zu Hildesheim, Hrsg. R. Doebner, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens IX (1903) 75-76, 88, 89, 90.

[p. 20]

Thomas a Kempis as characteristic of the Brethren. Their works owe their inspiration to the ideals derived from Radewijns.¹ However, the conditions under which these three persons stayed with the Brethren are somewhat different. According to G. Visser, Henry Mande arrived in Deventer in 1391, under the influence of Groote's preaching, having abandoned his function as scribe at the court of William VI (then still William of Oostervant). He must have speedily transferred to Windesheim, however, where he must have remained for some time before Radewijns sent a letter to Johan Vos of Heusden, prior in Windesheim. This letter can be dated between 30th November 1391 and 5th June 1392.² With such a short stay there was no question of his being admitted as a member of the Fraternity. For this a year's novicate was necessary, as in Windesheim. He appears to have already served this year in Windesheim when Radewijns interceded for him. Can such a short stay with the Brethren have had the influence on an adult man which Spoelhof assumes? Gerlach Peters, on the other hand, had, according to his sister Lubbe Peters, already felt the influence of Florens as a schoolboy.³ When he was still a clerk Florens often ‘spoke to him of good things’.⁴ He was only too anxious to win him to follow the spiritual life. Gerlach heard the call while playing the role of Our Lady in a play being given in the great church. He showed this as arranged by kneeling before the child he was offering, (evidently a school play or liturgical sketch given at Candlemas and played by school children). Brother Gerlach then went to Windesheim.⁵ According to John Busch, Gerlach eagerly followed the Brethren's preaching after this event and was instructed by Florens in the principles of the religious life. Florens then sent him to Windesheim to be received into the religious state.⁶ Here too is not clear if he was first admitted to the Brethren. Florens Radewijns exercised considerable influence on the youth, but is it reasonable to suppose that this spiritual teaching influenced his future non-conformity or tolerance?

1 Spoelhof 170.

2 G. Visser, Hendrik Mande, Den Haag 1899, 12-131.

3 D. de Man, Hier beginnen sommige stichtige punten van onser olde zusteren, Den Haag 1919, 16-17.

4 ‘wat guets’

5 That Gerlach Peters is here called Brother does not necessarily mean that he was previously a Brother of the Common Life. It may mean that he was the brother of sister Lubbe Peters, or that he was a novice in Windesheim.

6 Joh. Busch. Chronica Windeshemense, ed. K. Grube, Geschichtsquellen der Saksen 19, 1880, 156.

[p. 21]

Spoelhof also assumes Thomas a Kempis to have been for some time an actual member of the congregation of the Brethren (the inner circle of the Deventer Brotherhood).¹ This assumption is based on evidence from Thomas's own works. He did indeed, encouraged by his brother, travel to Deventer as a boy of 13, probably in 1394. His intention was to enter the chapter school, depending to some extent, or even perhaps largely, on the charity of the city burghers and of the Brethren of the Common Life. His confidence was not misplaced! Florens Radewijns received Thomas for a time (aliquantisper) into his house (the house of the Brethren or their hostel), and placed him in school. Subsequently he found him free accommodation (hospitium) with an upright and pious woman who showed many kindnesses to him and other pupils.² In the meantime he kept up the connection with Florens Radewijns and his Brethren. Thomas rejoiced in their exemplary life and in their preaching. Never before had he met such people, he later told his novices at the Agnietenberg. Meditative men who having first said Matins at home, proceded to the church where they devoutly heard mass. Some of the Brethren preached in church. Finally he entered the Brothers' hostel (in domo antiqua, in communi bursa) which numbered about twenty scholars (clerici). All enjoyed board and lodgings and were under the jurisdiction of three laymen i.e. a procurator (later usually a priest) a cook and a tailor. From this house (not the Brotherhouse but the bursa, the hostel) some entered the order of canons regular and others became priests. Thomas remained in this bursa for about a year. One of his fellow students was Arnold of Schoonhoven with whom he shared room and bed. Here he learned ‘writing’ (calligraphy), to read the Scriptures, and the elements of good behaviour, not least through the encouragement of Arnold of Schoonhoven. What he earned with copying went to contribute to the general costs. He needed nothing more, for Florens provided him with everything.³ This Arnold was an exceptionally zealous and serious scholar who, when he had finished his schooling, was admitted to the Florens-house i.e. where the Brethren lived. He thus became a member of the fraternity.⁴ This year of Thomas's stay in the Brethren's hostel must have been the year 1398-1399, for it was in this latter year that he went to Zwolle as a scholar, to gain the

1 Spoelhof 189.

2 Thomas a Kempis, Dialogus noviciorum liber III ed. M.J. Pohl, 215, 318.

3 Ibid., 318-319.

4 Ibid., 322.

[p. 22]

indulgence granted by Pope Boniface IX¹: ego Thomas Kempis, scholaris Deventriensis veni Zwollis pro indulgentiis.

At the same time he visited his brother John who was then prior in the recently founded monastery of the Windesheimer canons at the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle.² This young man of about 18, who had been so kindly treated by Florens Radewijns, who had greatly influenced him in religious matters; this youth who had even lived for a year with 20 other boys in the fratres' hostel, did not enter the community of the Brethren, but that of the Canons regular. That Florens exercised a great influence on him is certain. Whether he trained him to hold democratic ideas on church organization or to practise an individual religiosity and incline towards non-conformity and tolerance is difficult to assess from these facts. Certainly Thomas a Kempis was never a member of the Brethren. This is even clearer in his case than with Henry Mande and Gerlach Peters.

We see thus that the historical connection of these three persons with the Brethren is rather different from what Spoelhof assumes. It is difficult to accept these ties as an explanation for the rise of the ideas mentioned above. If these really did exist they must have been formed in the monastery of Windesheim or in the Agnietenberg, a milieu with a clear cut rule and disciplined organization. They are unlikely to have been nurtured among the Brethren, who only had a democratic organization which they maintained and defended.

The contact of Wessel Gansfort with the Brethren in Zwolle was of the same kind as that of Thomas a Kempis in Deventer. He lived in one of the Brethren's hostels and had thus religious contacts with them. These contacts, however, lasted much longer than with Thomas a Kempis - from Gansfort's 13th to his 30th year. They continued until Gansfort was of an age to distinguish conformity, or lack of it, with the church, and the meaning of tolerance. As we shall see later, however, Spoelhof is not completely accurate concerning Gansfort's stay in Zwolle. He taught not in the domus pauperum (of the Brethren) but in the city school.³

After characterizing the clear tendency to consider the Brethren of the Common Life as the true representatives of the Devotio Moderna, it is well to examine more closely the contents of this interesting book.

1 Chronica Montis sanctae Agnetis. Ed. Pohl, VII, 368.

2 Ibid., 365 en 368.

3 Jacobus Traiecti alias de Voecht, Narratio de inchoatione domus clericorum in Zwollis, ed. M. Schoengen, Werken Hist. Gen. 13, 1908, 155-156.

[p. 23]

The author clearly described a factor often considered as one of the qualities of the Devotio Moderna, yet seldom expressly qualified or proved. This is the influence of the Brethren upon the rise and spread of Humanism and the Reformation. Those who support this thesis, being compelled to abandon their propositions one by one so far as concerns the Brethren's teaching, academic training and practice, entrench themselves on this domain, and it is very difficult to dislodge them. The thesis is vague and offers little grounds for certainty. This embarrasses both the supporters and the opponents of the theory. Spoelhof, on the contrary, is not vague. He says exactly what he means and tries to find support for his opinion in the writings of the authors mentioned above.

His view is clearly stated in the introduction. The Brethren of the Common Life did not strive definitely for complete tolerance, nor did they purposely hold themselves aloof from existing faith and rites. They adopted rather an attitude of deliberate and conscious indifference (not scepticism) towards the externals of institutionalized Christianity and by their practical mysticism they placed more emphasis upon personal piety than on the objective expression of religious feeling. The more they cultivated their religious ardour, the less importance they attached to formal ceremonies and the Roman Catholic articles of faith.

Their toleration and non-conformity reveal themselves in their attitude towards the external standards of institutionalized Christianity whereby conformity was prescribed. This does not mean that they fiercely defend the ideas of non-conformity and toleration, since these are in fact never goals in themselves, but always means to the goal. The goal of the Brethren was personal piety and immediate communion with God, which is the same thing.¹ Spoelhof deals only with the Dutch Brethren and covers the period up to the death of Wessel Gansfort (1489). In actual fact this marks the end of the history of the Brethren. They then lose their independent entity. In the last part of the fifteenth and the first quarter of the sixteenth centuries, the Brotherhood was absorbed into the intellectual and religious currents to which Humanism and the Reformation gave rise.²

On the basis of this, Spoelhof's main interest in the Brethren is to describe:

1. The organizational aspect of the movement, characterized, in the

1 Spoelhof, Introduction VII and VIII.

2 Ibid., X.

[p. 24]

case of the Brethren of the Common Life, by anti-institutionalism.

2. The mysticism of the Brethren of the Common Life, with its emphasis on practical ethics, the return to the first primitive Christianity and anti-intellectualism.¹

The first point is fairly quickly dealt with. The organization of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life who form the heart of the Devotio Moderna was never so strictly institutionalized as the congregation of Windesheim. The fraternity retained always the independent, democratic spirit intended from the beginning. There were no vows, they were free to come and go as they wished.² Although Spoelhof admits that this anti-institutional character was more passive than active he none the less thinks that from the very beginning this trait constituted a real power in the fraternity. They held that religion was a personal matter between a man's conscience and God and not a question of an institution to be practised only within the cloister. It might be seen as a return to the communal life of apostolic christianity.³ The fact that the Brethren adopted a completely monastic pattern of life and even founded and filled several monasteries and set themselves to train and fit young men for the monastic state does not detract from this anti-institutional character. The retention of the democratic character of their congregation was enough to save their independence. Spoelhof concludes from this that the Brethren of the Common Life indicated a reaction against the idea that a religious life could only develop within the walls of a monastery. This reaction, their lay character and their democratic government preserved the fraternity from absorption by the Windesheimers,⁴ whose institution led as we saw to intolerant regulations. It was different with the Brethren. There, individualism formed part of their teachings. Theirs was not, however, a purely personal religion; this was discouraged. But they learned that in their form of communal life, each individual was of more account than if he lived and acted alone. ‘This is true democratic individualism.’⁵ Although this idea is not completely clear, Spoelhof appears to be referring to the rejection of the forbidden extreme individualism. The individualism of the Brethren also led to their being condemned and harrassed by the Dominicans. The fraternity clearly displays a diminishing respect for the externals of religion and a greater emphasis upon the internal. In other words, it

1 Spoelhof p. 4.

2 Ibid., 8.

3 Ibid., 9 en 10.

4 Ibid., 18.

5 Ibid., 22.

[p. 25]

favoured personalism and individualism at the expense of institutionalism. In this deviation from the normal path lay the seeds of indifference to institutional Christianity and of non-conformity and freedom.¹ This also springs from their mysticism, which differs from that of the 14th century German mystics and is unique of its sort. It knows no extasy, with the exception perhaps of Henry Mande, but is entirely practical, ethical and social. It was, moreover, inspired by the example of the apostles (not only as regards community of possessions) and the imitation of Christ, described in the famous book of Thomas a Kempis which comprises the essence of the teaching of the Brethren of the Common Life.² It is, in addition, anti-intellectual. This is revealed, not in an aversion to education and knowledge, but in a mistrust of formal scholastics, and emerges in a certain letter of Groote's and in the writings of Florens Radewijns, Gerard Zerbolt and especially in Thomas's Imitation.³

Before demonstrating all this, Spoelhof deals with the thesis: mysticism produces religious individualism and thus is opposed to ecclesiastical conformism and unity. Or, to put it more positively, mysticism, by its very nature, leads to non-conformity and demands toleration.⁴ In all religions objective and subjective aspects must be distinguished. Among the objective must be numbered the externals, the rites, practices, decisive dogma and ecclesiastical organization and authority. The subjective, on the other hand, comprise the free inward life. Objective unity deprives subjectivity of inner freedom. It is thus with medieval Catholicism, in which the objective side is greatly stressed. The mystic strives for union with God and disregards the Church and the hierarchy. They are thus always opposed. Several writers like Jones, Preger, R. Bainton and J. Havelaar are even of the opinion that mysticism always leads to freedom and toleration. Spoelhof contests this, however. St. Augustine and St. Bernard were both great mystics, yet recommended persecution.⁵ One must agree with Harnack in dividing the mystics according to their degree, way and energy. It is precisely in these three points that the mysticism of the Brethren differs from that of the German mystics. They are not so absorbed in God that their individuality is neutralized or deified. According to Gilson they desire a practical Christian life and nothing more.⁶ For the rest, in the text quoted, Gilson says that this attitude is not mystic.

1 Spoelhof, 24-25.

2 Ibid., 31, 32.

3 Ibid., 32-33.

4 Ibid., 33.

5 Ibid., 37-40.

6 Ibid., 46.

[p. 26]

Under the influence of the Via Moderna, the mysticism of the Devotionalists stresses the will more than the intellect. According to de Beer, Groote was anti-intellectual. Mysticism among the Brethren and according to the Imitiation of Christ, which proceeds from the heart of the fraternity, had the qualities indicated in the beginning. These repose notably in the question of religious non-conformity. Dogma was not considered important, except for its consequences in the domain of morals. In this connection Spoelhof refers to a few texts from the first chapter of the first book of the Imitation. The Imitation is completely devoid of specific references to theological dogmas. The essential thing is the personal, virtuous life. Groote's sermon sermo contra focaristas has the same quality.¹ This anti-dogmatic attitude was passive. They took it for granted and did not devote much thought to it. The Brethren thus tended towards a spirit of indifference. Such personal piety could not be contested by the Church or state.² This Christian primitivism is revealed by the propaganda for the Imitation of Christ. The fides simplex of the Deventer circle was an indirect criticism, a drawing away from the ecclesiastical and the dogmatic, a putting into practice of medieval catholicism.³ This attitude also gave rise to a Biblicism which differs from that of the Humanists.⁴

‘The Brethren of the Common Life were not deliberate champions of religious toleration and religious non-conformity. They were not iconoclasts... However, in spite of a conscientious effort at ecclesiastical conformity there emanated from the Brotherhouses an equally strong inclination toward toleration of personal forms of religious life and faith’.⁵ Despite their pietistic forms of life, their tendencies towards mysticism and their orthodoxy with regard to the dogmatic churches, they were considered in their time as liberals.⁶

Spoelhof must naturally still give his argumentation for these theses: that their practical mysticism led the Brothers of the Common Life to contrast their personal religious life with that of the church and inner piety with its outward manifestations and, secondly, that their contempt for the dogma led to tolerance. These theses are, however, deceptive and it is understandable that they should attract sup-

1 Spoelhof, 94.

2 Ibid., 48.

3 Ibid., 49.

4 Here a text of Mestwerdt is incorrectly quoted.

5 Ibid., 50.

6 This on the authority of Moll, 51.

[p. 27]

porters. They do, indeed, offer the possibility of maintaining the theory of the Brethren's influence which many have rated highly for over a century. Here too we shall have to examine the argumentation more closely. First, however, a few general considerations. Spoelhof is here employing the ambiguous meaning of mystic or mysticism. The fact that some of the German mystics, and Eckhart especially, during the conflict of Ludwig of Bavaria with the Avignon Popes and during the interdict imposed at that time, may have sought union with God along mystical channels alone, (perhaps even to the extent of displaying indifference towards the Church), has nothing to do with the Brethren of the Common Life. They were devout men who tried, by meditation and ‘rumination’ to keep always before their minds the life and Passion of Christ and who directed their lives to this end. Their piety and the practice of virtues like humility, obedience, chastity and diligence demanded no aversion to the external cult and other usages or ceremonies. The external serves rather to define the inward life. The liturgy is in the first place a worship of God, but is intended also to associate the faithful inwardly with the prayers and acts and thus arouse inner piety. The contrast assumed by Spoelhof and others would imply that no inner piety existed in Christianity before the coming of the Devotio Moderna. It would even mean that one could scarcely speak of religiosity at all in the Eastern Churches, notably in the monasteries. Spoelhof's opinion assumes too that all who did not belong to the Brethren of the Common Life and who recognized the value of the external ceremony with which all churches and monasteries were filled, possessed no inner piety at all. It cannot be denied that the inner significance escaped very many and that too much emphasis was placed on outward devotion and on pilgrimage. Still less can one deny that the performance of the outward ceremonies left much to be desired. This is common to every period. One can safely assume that not all the Brethren imitated the ideals of inward piety, nor were they perpetually conscious of these ideals. Complaints of negligence at the outward ceremonies and of absentmindedness or wool-gathering at meditation are indeed means to improvement, like the repeated collation, the examination of conscience and fraternal admonition. A remarkable fact is that neither Spoelhof nor Hyma mentions that the Brethren of the Common Life began the day with the communal praying (or singing) of Matins; that they heard Mass daily and also prayed the other Hours every day, not to mention that for the canons of Windesheim, to whom H. Mande, G. Peters and

[p. 28]

Thomas a Kempis belonged, the choir prayer formed one of their principal duties. One sees how important it was for Spoelhof to associate these three as much as possible with the Brethren. And even if what he thinks of them is true, the fact remains that all three wrote their works as canons. It is thus a difficult undertaking to deduce from these particular works the assumed essential contrast between external and internal, between subjective and objective, between Brethren and Windesheimers. Besides, the non-mention of dogma is not necessarily a sign of contempt or indifference. The aim of the Imitation was the fostering of virtue, the intensification of spirituality, and not catechization. It assumes that the reader or hearer was already acquainted with the dogma as the basis of Christianity.

I shall be content, for the present, with these general considerations and refrain from taking issue on all points, for example that the organization of the Brethren and Sisters of the Common Life implies a reaction against the idea that a ‘religious life’ can only be lived within the limits of a monastic order.¹ ‘Religious Life’ in this context is an ambiguous expression. Religio in the Middle Ages can be synonymous with the monastic life which can, naturally, only be experienced in a monastic order. But it can also have the general meaning of a life lived in the service of God. This could formerly also be led outside the monasteries. We have, for example, the third order of Franciscans and Dominicans, and the hermits and saints who never lived in a monastery like kings Stephen and Louis. Moreover, one must be careful with the statutes of the Master Geertshuis of which we possess two versions. They were drawn up not by Geert Groote, but by the city magistrates. That the Sisters were free to leave the house as they wished and that the mistress was elected yearly, refers to a time when the house was still an ‘almshouse’ and not a convent. As a proof of the democratic organization of the Sisters and Brethren it is valueless.² The same can be said of the lay character of the Brethren.

After dealing with what might be called the general aspects of the question, Spoelhof turns to the particular, i.e. the attitude of the seven persons from the world of the Devotio Moderna. He deals first with the founder, Geert Groote. How can he consider him as a man whose personal piety and individualism led to tolerance, when he is known to all modern authors, from Clarisse in the last century to the writers

1 Spoelhof 17.

2 Spoelhof 14, R. Post, De statuten van het Mr. Geertshuis te Deventer, Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht 71 (1952) 1-46.

[p. 29]

of our day as the hammer of the heretics Malleus haereticorum? This chapter is accordingly entitled ‘Active Intolerance’ in the life of Geert Groote. Its nature and its object.¹ For Spoelhof the name malleus haereticorum is a modern invention. According to him the earliest biographers of Geert Groote do not use this term. Spoelhof does not mean to deny that Groote opposed three named heretics, Mathias, Gerbrandus and Bartholomeus in particular and the brothers of the Free Spirit in general. That would be impossible. He does however think that one should bear in mind exactly why Geert Groote fought against this heresy. On the one hand it menaced his free foundation, the Sisters of the Common Life, since according to the statutes of 1379, they were threatened with being equated with the Beguines. But principally, Groote is a zealot for the preservation of moral life. The brothers of the Free Spirit were a threat to society in their propaganda for a life without penitence and without commandments. They are thus on a par with the focarists among the clergy of Utrecht; they lower the moral standard. This is why all Groote's biographers class the two struggles, against the focarists and the heretics, together. Groote is not a stern defender of Church dogma, but a champion of virtue. In this connection I must point out, firstly that the earliest biography, the rhymed text, does indeed call Groote malleus haereticorum,² as did Salvarvilla in a letter dated 21st October 1383, haereticorum persecutor;³ next that the biographers do speak of Groote's struggle against the above-mentioned haeretici and finally that the section of the statutes of the master Geertshuis in which the Beguines occur, was not written by Groote himself. It was only formulated ten years after his death. Also, in addition to the dogmas which define what Catholics are to believe, there are also those which state how they must act. The heretics whom Groote opposed rejected some of the last and some of the first group. They were heretics, and Groote fought them by means customary at the time: spying on their conversations, bringing information against them, appeal to the inquisitions, offering himself as inquisitor, expressing dissatisfaction with moderate punishment. Finally, one could maintain that in the struggle against the focarists, Groote says little about the moral results of infringing the rule of celibacy. In other words, he deals not so much with the moral as with

1 Spoelhof, 52-105.

2 Dictamen ritmicum, cf. 117 O.G.E. XVI (1942) 43.

3 Ger. M. Ep. 60.

[p. 30]

the juridical aspect i.e. what are the legal consequences of their transgression of the law¹ (see chapter I, no. O p. 129).

For all his love of the good Geert Groote is a juridical thinking man who does not stress tolerance either in theory or practice. He gives the impression rather of an uncompromising lawyer, who swears by the old rules and by stern commentators. In the next chapter (III) Spoelhof continues with Groote, his ideas of religious conformity and nonconformity. The author refutes (or attempts to refute) some opinions held by other writers, and then repeats his theory that Groote's struggle against error can only be explained by his practical ethics. He devotes two pages to showing that Groote conformed. He was always prepared to support the Roman Catholic traditions, preached a correct Roman Catholic doctrine and observed the rites, practices and institutions of the Church.² He was a model of discipline and obedience and recognized the authority of the Church over all those under her jurisdiction.³ The strange thing is that Spoelhof suddenly confines this attitude of Groote's to externals⁴ and that he none the less observes in Groote's work a tendency towards replacing the institutional church by a personal approach to God. ‘To Groote the spirit of God was not in the hierarchy of the Church, but it was within the heart of the individual; hence the essence of religion demanded the cultivation of the inner life.’⁵ In every mention of an inner life in Groote's letters and treatises, Spoelhof sees confirmation of his opinion that Groote finally rejected externals. He has found various texts which seem at first sight to justify his opinion, and contain a sort of contrast between inner and outer life. Some, however, admit of a completely different interpretation and have in their context a meaning different from that deduced by Spoelhof. Since this is an important question, I must quote these texts again here. ‘I believe,’ said Groote, ‘that prayer is of more use for him than regulations. Just as preaching and admonition are better than absolution or false penance. Only God can convert sinners.’⁶ This text is taken from a letter to John van de Gronde, Groote's friend and pastor in Amsterdam. Groote considers the regimen animarum as

1 J. Clarisse, Geert Grootes Sermo de focariis et fornicatoribus presbyteris facta in domo capitularis Trajectensi, Archief van kerkelijke geschiedenis, II (1830) 395.

2 Spoelhof 121-122.

3 Ibid., 122-123.

4 Ibid., 124.

5 Ibid., 124-125.

6 Ibid., 125.

[p. 31]

the highest art. It demands a knowledge of canon law and of theology and above all requires experience. A parish priest could derive much benefit from the ‘Pastorale’ of Pope Gregory I. But even a wise and good pastor cannot help those who are without hope or remorse. Then follow the words quoted. They are thus intended only for this particular case; the guidance of hopeless or unwilling parishioners. For them one can only pray. Such people are not helped by a sermon, admonition or absolution. God alone can help and bring about a change of heart.¹

A second text concerns the stressing of the inner communion which is at the basis of union with God in love for Christ.² These words are taken from the letter on schism, in which Spoelhof has found more proofs for his thesis, but in my opinion they refer more to excommunication than to a spiritual (inner) communion. The Church has cast them off because they proclaimed a doctrine which she did not approve (on the Holy Trinity for example) or because they persist in preaching error. They are thus excluded from Catholic society and from receiving the sacraments.³

Then follows the opinion of de Beer, which is not rendered completely accurately and need not be discussed here. Much more important is that Geert Groote, in his Zedelyke Toespraak, a small work but the only one written, or at least preserved, in the vernacular, says that the kingdom of God can not be attained by the strict observance of outward forms, since true religion presumes a personal relationship with God. ‘All external works, whether it be fasting, scourging, singing psalms, reading the pater noster ... do not in themselves make for righteousness.’⁴ ‘Such a dominant stress upon the inner life as the source of true religion goes far in denying the supremacy of the Church in its claim to mediation between God and man.’⁵ The text is well rendered, although Spoelhof has replaced by dots the phrase ‘all works that are good’ since it weakens his argument. In Geert Groote's address, these good works do not lose their value because they lack inward thoughts, but because they do not produce the righteousness (the giving to each his own), peace and joy which St. Paul poses as conditions for the Kingdom of God. Groote elaborates his point of view, referring to St. Thomas Aquinas. The supremacy of the Church and her claim to mediate between God and man is scarcely in question.

1 Ger. M. Ep. 101.

2 Spoelhof 125.

3 Ger. M. Ep. 79-80.

4 Spoelhof 126.

5 Ibid., 126-126.

[p. 32]

It is, moreover, doubtful whether the concept of Church mediation went so far in Groote's time as Spoelhof appears to think.

Another equally padded quotation is taken from Groote's book de Simonia ad Beguttas.¹ On the authority of Honorius of Auxerre (Augustodunensis), he wishes to make clear what exactly simony is. The spiritual thing (which it is desired to buy) is everything in which the Holy Ghost dwells; virtues, sacraments, miracles or prophecies. But a distinction must be made. The greatest spiritual good is virtue, and notably charity. This is greater than the other two, since virtue renders man more spiritual and binds him more closely to God than the signs of the sacrament, or miracles or prophecies. For both good and evil people can receive and confer the sacraments, and sometimes have the gift of prophecy and of working miracles. He refers here to St. Matthew and St. Augustine. From what St. Augustine says it can be deduced that the virtues are spiritual things. The greater and more inward divine virtue is, the more holy are faith, hope and charity. The sacraments, miracles and prophecies were ordained by God to foster virtue and to nourish the soul in charity and to unite it with God through virtue, the spiritual life and good works. It appears to me that this opinion, derived from Honorius of Auxerre, is a fairly general one. The sacraments give grace, which in various circumstances aids the practice of virtue.

Spoelhof also finds material for his thesis in the Sermo contra focaristas. This is important because it deals not with dogmas, with which Groote was not particularly concerned, but with Christian ethics. On this point he refuses to accept the leadership of the church, according to this Sermon. Groote complained that many people have more regard for the laws and judgments of the church than for the mandates and precepts of God and the laws of nature. According to Groote the darkness of their hearts blinds them to these divine laws and precepts because, like the scribes and prophets, they place human traditions above the law. This appears from the fact that the laws and instructions of the church are better observed than the precepts of nature and divine commands.

It seems that on this point Geert Groote is at variance with some (quidam; not many people) who tend to follow the positive law rather than the natural and the divine law. Not, though, because it is better, but because it is easier to know. Groote even goes so far as to liken

1 W. de Vreese, 's-Gravenhage 1940. 21-22.

[p. 33]

these persons to the Scribes and Pharisees. If it were indeed his intention to denigrate the positive law of the church and the canon law then it is strange that he does so in this Sermo, in which he has documented fully 90 pages with decrees from this law and the commentators glosses! Such an assumption must be wrong, the more so since Groote's letters and treatises are full of purely juridical arguments taken from positive ecclesiastical law.

The really difficult passage, however, is found in a context in which Groote attempts to explain why suspension for transgressing church laws is reasonable, whereas suspension for transgressing divine laws takes place not in this world, but only in the hereafter. He finds it just that human offences should be chastized by human punishments. Groote here is thus defending church law. But some, in his opinion, go too far. Groote concludes: a precisely because the matter is clearer - as regards knowledge - and because there is more chance of amendment, the church is led to indicate more the human than the divine supervision.¹ Spoelhof refers to these two pages in arguing that, according to Groote, the church's regulations were only ‘man-made’. He is indeed referring to a suspension incurred for the breaking of a church law and one incurred for moral sin. The effects of the latter are to Groote's mind more important; mortal sinners will be punished later, the others here. Finally, a church law is a human law. It strikes me as not particularly remarkable that this should be recognized in the Middle Ages.

Spoelhof then refers to Groote's letter to Werner, a school rector of Kampen, who was persecuted for his support of Groote. Werner and his friends must bow to the magistrate, only insofar as such a decree is reconcilable with their belief.² This letter clearly shows Groote's concern for the preservation of dogma. For its sake one must be prepared to suffer persecution, as the saints have always done.³ Groote also thinks, according to Spoelhof, that the sacrament of Holy Supper would become inefficacious if administered by a priest known to be living in mortal sin; and that an order from the pope to receive the sacrament from such a priest is a human order.⁴ In my opinion the page in question refers only to a priest who is living in sin and who thus may not perform any sacred acts until he has repented, and neither

1 Sermo, Archief van Kerkelijke Geschiedenis VIII (1837) 64-65.

2 Spoelhof 128-129.

3 Ger. M. Ep. 195-196.

4 Spoelhof 129: Sermo, Archief enz. VIII (1837) 61.

[p. 34]

the pope nor any other church dignitary has the right to exhort the person to such an act ‘under human obedience.’¹ The pope cannot either give permission for a deed which gives rise to scandal.²

Spoelhof makes little use of Groote's letter on the Schism³. He does mention that Christ is the head of the Church and the basis of its unity, and that the pope is only head of the Visible Church.⁴ Furthermore:⁵ ‘he considered a pope deposed and his decrees of no effect, as soon as he committed a mortal sin, even though that pope had been canonically elected. And furthermore, any pope committing such a sin was thereby outside the church.’ The last sentence may indeed be found at the place given, but not the first. Groote does tend to spiritualize the church immoderately and for him the rock upon which the church is built is Christ, not the pope. In this he follows St. Augustine to a certain extent.⁶ (see chapter I, no. Q, p. 149)

From all these considerations Spoelhof concludes that Groote had a personal religion. This conclusion seems to me erroneous, even if all Spoelhof's premisses are correct. Finally Spoelhof finds in this personal religion a radical element, notably because Groote addressed himself to the laity and made them conscious of their responsibility in religious matters.⁷ He preached them no new doctrine, but exhorted them to virtue. While the clergy were hostile to him, out of jealousy and an uneasy conscience, the people supported him. His attitude had a lay character and even acquired an anti-clerical spirit. This emerges too from the free organizations of the Sisters, confession for the laity, and the priesthood of all the faithful.

These conclusions are palpably exaggerated. Groote received support from various priests, whereas many lay people (particularly in Kampen) opposed him. The statutes for the Sisters are not his, and the magistrates drew up the first rules. Confession of sins without absolution was not confession in the proper sense. This only involved confessing open transgression of the rule and not absolution. The translation of the Bible was confined to the Penitential

1 Sermo 61.

2 Spoelhof 130. Sermo, Archief VIII (1837) 13.

3 Ger. M. Ep. no. 21, 78-93.

4 Spoelhof 129.

5 Ibid., 130.

6 G. van Asseldonk, De Nederlanders en het westerse schisma (tot 1398), Diss. Nijmegen 1955, 185-186. Spoelhof, 131, also rejects Prof. Mulder's theory that Groote did not abide by the prohibition from preaching.

7 Spoelhof 135.

[p. 35]

Psalms, to prayers in fact. Spoelhof's conclusions are unacceptable.

‘It would be an untenable claim to assert that this tendency in Groote's teaching marked him as a precursor of Dutch religious non-conformity and religious toleration in a direct line. Yet it would be a difficult, if not an impossible procedure, to explain fully the attitude of the Dutch towards religious toleration without taking into account the basis laid by the father of the Devotio Moderna. Geert Groote performed a most significant mission for the religious life of the Low Countries, when he released religion from the bonds of sterile orthodoxy in the bosom of the church and placed it in the heart of the individual where it manifested itself in virtue and love.’¹

In the fourth chapter Spoelhof discusses: Concepts of non-conformity and toleration in the thought and expression of Florentius Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt. Geert Groote thus did not transmit to the Brethren his character of malleus haereticorum, but continued to lay the basis of religious toleration.²

When Geert Groote gave Florens Radewijns his permission for the democratic form of the new organization, the Dominicans were openly hostile. They considered this an attempt to undermine the authority of the Roman Catholic episcopate.³ To Florens Radewijns goes the honour of having established the democratic, the free religious association, devoted to the social and ethic programme of the ‘Imitation of Christ.’ Spoelhof accepts Ullmann's opinion that this organization offered sufficient scope for the development of individual liberty. Radewijns, it is true, proclaimed no theory of an absolute or even comparative religious toleration. Spoelhof found little evidence of this in his writings and mentions nothing.⁴ Radewijns did, however, follow a social and ethic programme devoid of any intolerance. Spoelhof recognizes the passive nature of this tolerance. Absence of intolerance does not necessarily imply a striving after tolerance.⁵ In Radewijn's treatise one finds the same attitude towards Roman Catholic dogma as is found in the writings of Geert Groote:⁶ on the other hand he mistrusted ‘mere knowledge’ and disliked scholastic

1 Spoelhof 137. He follows these words with the text of Bonet-Maury in which emphasis is also laid on the laity.

2 Ibid., 138.

3 Ibid., 139.

4 Ibid., 144.

5 Ibid., 144.

6 Ibid., 146.

[p. 36]

formalism.¹ He was a man of exemplary life, who was good to men and to the sick.

Spoelhof's picture of Gerard Zerbolt's education and academic achievements is exaggerated, especially with regard to foreign schools. He did however work to gain approval for the Brotherhood in Utrecht and Dikninge, and the opponents of the Brotherhood evidently saw in his activities an undermining of the ties of conformity with the Roman Catholic hierarchy.²

Zerbolt defended the Brethren's way of life in his Super modo vivendi devotorum hominum simul commorantium. The objections to the Brethren are indicated better here.³ In the book De libris teutonicalibus, Zerbolt defends the reading of books, including the Scriptures, in the vernacular. He supports his arguments by quotations from many writers, including St. Thomas Aquinas. Spoelhof, however, incorrectly asserts here that the vernacular was employed ‘for religious worship’⁴ (if by this he means the liturgy): ‘One senses the free and independent attitude of the Brethren of the Common Life.’⁵ Being a good Roman Catholic Zerbolt admits the church's right to forbid books containing errors of dogma. Spoelhof does not consider this a sign of intolerance.⁶ ‘He was not attempting to lay down a law of rigid conformity in Roman Catholic dogma, but he merely wished to indicate that the Brethren of the common life were in no way isolating the law of the church.’⁷ None the less Zerbolt was a mystic.⁸ There is also the same insistence in the personal, virtuous religious life and disavowal of merely formal institutional religiosity as essential for union with God.⁹ This, however, does not prove anything. Does this follow from the two great works? In the De reformatione interiori, seu virium animae, Spoelhof finds ‘this personal approach to religion.’¹⁰ Purity of life is the principal goal of the religious life. The greatest work De Spiritualibus ascensionibus also stresses love as the touchstone of Christianity.¹¹ He testified that: ‘the norm of a truly Christian life was not to be found in ecclesiastical positions and external observance, but love’¹², practical mysticism which has been shown to be dangerous to the principle of institutional conformity etc. Zerbolt's book is thus ‘a

1 Spoelhof 146.

2 Ibid., 151, 153.

3 Ibid., 154.

4 Ibid., 155-157.

5 Ibid., 158.

6 Ibid., 160.

7 Ibid., 160.

8 Ibid., 162.

9 Ibid., 163.

10 Ibid., 164.

11 Ibid., 164.

12 Ibid., 165.

[p. 37]

basis for religious toleration.’¹ It is always the same, but these are not proofs. There is an inner life, nourished by meditation, but there also exists an outward ceremony (worship); there is no contrast between the two and no sign of toleration.

In chapter IV Spoelhof discusses the three Windesheimers: Three new devotionalists, Henry Mande, Gerlach Peters and Thomas a Kempis, followers of Florentius Radewijns.

We have already indicated in how far this was true. Mande differed from the Brethren in being ‘an apocalyptic visionary who could not distinguish clearly between his own objective and subjective religious experience.’² And yet his work reveals the teaching of Groote and Radewijns. Take away the monastic traits and his work is nothing more than the elaboration of the idea and the expression of the Brotherhood. ‘There is the same professed attachment to Roman Catholicism’ as with the leaders of the Brethren.³ But: ‘In spite of this professed attachment to the church, Mande's pronouncements in other places carry him, unconsciously, dangerously close to a disavowal of the great teachings of the church.’⁴ Mande was a mystic, but in love, in devotion, in deeds of practical piety and imitation of Christ, he was one with the Brethren.⁵ Religion for him was a personal, not an institutional creation, although he would never be willing to admit it. It emerges in his ecstacy, in the striving for love. For him outward works are valueless and too highly esteemed by some.⁶ He adopted the same subjective standpoint towards knowledge. When a person has learned to know something in his inner self, his arguments can never be refuted. The testimony of the individual conscience is of the greatest importance in estimating the value of the entire body of revealed truth.⁷

Certain remarks of his are striking and seem to justify some people (including G. Visser) in detecting in Mande certain traits which were also common to the sixteenth century Reformers.⁸ Others of his

1 Spoelhof, 166.

2 Ibid., 173.

3 Ibid., 173.

4 Ibid., 174.

5 Ibid., 194.

6 Ibid., 176-177.

7 Ibid., 179.

8 I.e. the significance of good works, indulgences, G. Visser, Hendrik Mande, 's-Gravenhage 1899, 83, 84 ... but not precursors of the Reformation; rather faithful to the Church, 85.

[p. 38]

pronouncements have led Spoelhof to classify Mande as a non-conformist and belonging to ‘the camp of the outspoken tolerationists,’ in imitation of the Brethren.¹ Both postulate that Mande remained faithful to the dogma of the church. They refer to various remarks of his, but do not take them as a sign that the Catholicism of the time had not forgotten the internal life, the correct intention, the imitation of Christ as much as is commonly supposed. Instead of that Mande and others are isolated from many predecessors and contemporaries who were also well aware that outward works like penance and fasting had little meaning without the right intention, who continually recommended the imitation of Christ and recognized the comparative nature of externals. These men, however, were never stamped as non-conformists or modern tolerant figures - men like St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard, members of the school of St. Victor, all mystics, but also theologians and preachers. Even the criticism of the clergy was, one might say, much more frequent despite the many tokens of respect, and the constant increase in the number of priests. In this connection one might think for example of Maarlant or of the author of Reynard the Fox. The utterances of Mande seem to me comparatively moderate, and it is not good to prise these remarks from the opus as a whole, to interpret them moreover, stringently, and thus to make of him a non-conformist. I do not think that one is justified in saying: ‘Mande's approach to religion undermined the prevalent popular conception of the efficacy of good works, while his almost anti-clerical attitude diminished the respect for those who sought to enforce conformity to Roman Catholicism. His exaltation of direct religious experience as well as his depreciation of pedantry among the teachers of his day were aimed to destroy mere formalism and sterile orthodoxy whose principal prop was enforced conformity.’²

Besides recalling that we cannot expect him to have written down all his knowledge or desires, I ask myself if every form of worship, every ecclesiastical decree may be classed as ‘mere formalism’ or every orthodoxy termed sterile. If this is so, our task becomes difficult indeed. Apart from this Spoelhof mentions the following three points: the rejection of the popular concept of the efficacy of good works; his almost anti-clerical attitude; his disapproval of the ‘pedantry’ among the professors. Spoelhof naturally refers to definite texts; ‘Our Lord does not say that one should go on a pilgrimage to this place or that,

1 W. Spoelhof, 182-183.

2 Ibid., 175-176.

[p. 39]

or that one should sail over the sea, but he says that we should turn within to our own hearts and there we shall find this.¹’

The words quoted by Spoelhof may indeed be found at the place indicated and he has translated them correctly. They do contain some depreciation of the custom of making pilgrimage, but Spoelhof forgets to mention the context. In the passage mentioned, Mande is discussing the meaning of sin. The words which precede are absolutely necessary for the correct understanding of this passage: ‘Furthermore our beloved Lord teaches us how we shall be converted and where when He says: you who have sinned, return to your hearts, there you shall find Me.’²

Then follow the words quoted above, and: ‘With remorse in our hearts we shall confess the evil paths.’³ Mande thus, does not reject pilgrimages in general, but says that they have no value for the conversion of sinners. One can make pilgrimages after conversion or one might even become converted during the pilgrimage or after. But it is the conversion, the radical change of mind and heart, which is the condition, not the pilgrimage. I assume that every thinking contemporary agreed with Mande, even should he wish to retain the pilgrimage as an act of devotion. It does not follow from the words quoted that Mande rejected the idea of pilgrimages completely. As a monastic, he did not see much good in them, nor for that matter did his order Brother Thomas a Kempis.⁴

Spoelhof goes on to quote other texts which are intended to prove that Mande did not attach much value to good works: ‘some consider it of much worth that they fast much, keep vigils, sing and study much and do other outward works, and such people think that it (religion) consists in just that.’⁵ These words may also be found in the place indicated, but in a passage in which Mande addresses himself to persons in monasteries or congregations (houses of the Brethren) who mock his exhortations to the contemplative life. It is thus his opponents he is combatting. This is not a description but a reproach. He has difficulty in keeping himself in check: ‘these devils fast and keep

1 Spoelhof, 176.

2 H. Mande, Een Boecskyn van drien staten eens bekierden mensch, ed. W. Moll, Brugman, 264-265. ‘Voert hoe wij ons bekeren sullen ende wair, dat leert ons onse gheminde Heer en seyt: ghij die overgetreden sijt overmids sunde, keert weder totter herten, dair seldy mij vynden.’

3 ‘Wij sellen merken mit rouwe om herten die quade weghen enz.’

4 See below.

5 H. Mande, Een Boecskyn van drien Staten eens bekierden mensch, ed. W. Moll, 287, Spoelhof 176.

[p. 40]

vigil, yet they shall never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’¹ In the other words quoted: ‘They sparkle and gleam outwardly because they have the appearance of being devout, but inwardly they lack the true virtues and do not possess the true freedom but only the appearance of such.’² Here too Mande is aiming at certain people who have no true knowledge of the things of the spirit, who do not know the immensity of the true sweetness. They have a false taste of the sweetness and they arrive at the wrong things: they lack the taste.³

The text thus, is completely detached from its context. Mande is not talking about good works, but about the works of people in error who thinking they possess the superhuman vision and joy are in actual fact deprived of them.

Finally there follow two texts which are intended to show that Mande considered good works to be useless.³ The first concerns the status of the contemplating soul. In this stage all work, both inward and outward, ceases. It has no meaning at all. The second text follows on from the passage already mentioned, in which Mande attacks monastics and Brethren who laugh at his theories and practices. ‘They must know that religious feeling and the ardent love and desire for God and a loving attachment to Him are sufficient to gain eternal life, even though he had neither hands nor feet nor tongue with which to perform good works.’⁴ It is the great contrast. Mande senses that he has gone a little too far and continues: you must not, however, think that external good works and the practice of virtue are bad. It depends on the intention with which they are performed. Mande is here referring to the Collationes of John Cassian which were widely known and in which every monk could read the correct evaluation of good works. The last text quoted by Spoelhof concerns a passage dealing with humility in man. We must not rate our works too highly⁵, but

1 Moll, 288.

2 Ed. G. Visser 12, Spoelhof 177, ‘die geen ware kennis hebben van de geestelijke dingen, die niet de onmetelijkheid van de waarachtige sueticheit kenden. Zij hebben een valse smaak van de zoetheid en zij komen tot verkeerde dingen; zij missen de smaak: aldus danighe menschen blenken en lichten van buten, want si hebben eenrehande ghedaente van devocieën, mer binnen sijn si idel van warachtighen doechden ende en hebben die warachtighen vriheit niet, mer een schijn daeraf!’

3 One from the frequently quoted book ‘van de drien Staten’, Moll 284-285, 188 and one from ‘Het Devoet Boexken van der volmaecster hoecheit der minnen’, ed. Visser, 71, Spoelhof 178.

3 One from the frequently quoted book ‘van de drien Staten’, Moll 284-285, 188 and one from ‘Het Devoet Boexken van der volmaecster hoecheit der minnen’, ed. Visser, 71, Spoelhof 178.

4 Moll, 288, Spoelhof 178.

5 H. Mande, Het Devoet Boexken vander volmaecster hoecheit der minnen; ed. Visser 71, ‘wi hebben dicwijl schoen begin ende cleyn vervolch van goede werken.’

[p. 41]

rather have regard to our littleness. Here he is not dealing with the value of good works, but combatting pride and encouraging humility, which in itself can also be a good work.

The question of the evaluation of good works is a topical one in the late Middle Ages, among theologians as well as among the practici. But the Canons were possibly familiar with the well known pronouncement of St. Jerome which they could probably read in their breviaries, in the third nocturn of the communi abbatum: Christ answered to Peter: Truly, I say to you, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones etc. Jerome remarks: He does not say - as Peter had done - you who have left everything. The philosopher Crates did so too, and many others have abandoned wealth. He says ‘you who have followed me.’ Only the Apostles and the faithful did this. The fact that emphasis is laid upon the intention behind good works does not indicate non-conformity. On the contrary, it was the commonly held opinion. This does not mean either of course that there were not some pious people who rejoiced especially in the quantity of fasts, prayers and good works, like the pharisees in the Gospel. Such people existed then and will doubtless continue to exist, but everyone who opposes such an attitude can scarcely be called a non-conformist.

Spoelhof rightly remarks: ‘Nevertheless, works were concomitant to true charity, for where there was charity there were also good works.’¹ That the value of the works, however, consists ‘only in the good intentions of the individual,’ is surely not found in the passages quoted. In Visser, page 30, mention is made of the first way to the heart of Christ. For this is required attachment to divine things, the right intention towards God ‘that is a basis and a beginning of all virtues.’ On page 7 of Visser's book there is mention of a certain work which is suggested by the devil without the persons realizing it. If he performs this work out of love of God, it must have merit, since it is performed from love. But the work itself is also good, even though it should prevent a better. On page 71 a struggle is mentioned against the desire of the eyes, the greediness of life.² If we wish to please Our Lord we must avoid and despise temporal things. This idea is elaborated. Here the deed itself counts, as well as the intention. The latter alone is not sufficient. Again Spoelhof refers to Moll, 288 where Mande defends his ‘god-contemplative life’ against the mockers, and

1 Spoelhof 177. Here he refers to the works published by Visser 30, 51. Moll 285-288. He refers to page 12, but I have not been able to discover what he means.

2 Ibid. 177.

[p. 42]

exaggerates somewhat, only to make up for it again immediately.

In the book: van der volmaecster hoechest des minnen ende hoe men dair toe sal pinen te comen,¹ Mande gives a clear theory of good works. It is strange that Spoelhof does not refer to this place. Since the world will persecute the faithful - the servant is not better than the master - one must always practise virtue, not for the reward, not for position in heaven or on earth, but simply because it is due to the exalted dignity of God, who made and created human nature that we might praise and honour him. ‘And this is the way which the Son of God, our dear Lord Jesus Christ, followed before us and gave us an example, for during his earthly life he always performed the will of his father in all things, in word, in work, in love and sorrow, in high and low...’

What H. Mande says about our knowledge of God and what he has revealed sounds subjective in various passages, but is stated expressly and in detail in the book: ‘of the light of truth.’² Here he contrasts the masters and clerics, in my opinion professors (especially of Paris) and students.³ These know a great deal about the Holy Scriptures and about the Fathers, but Mande and all who are illuminated by the supernatural light, i.e. those who enjoy the gift of contemplating God, know much more. This knowledge is imparted to them directly by God, without books, without scriptures, without study or effort of any kind. In judging this passage one must bear in mind that Mande is speaking of a knowledge enjoyed by him (or some other persons) in the state of union with God. He recognizes only one truth, part of which is revealed to the professors by their study, but of which the mystics, in their union with God, see, understand, know and taste another aspect. The various ways in which knowledge is revealed are contrasted with each other, not the truth. That which proceeds directly from divine enlightenment is more lofty and more reliable, especially since the professors have recourse to pagan philosophy in order to know the Revelation or to prove particular points thereof. This is certainly an attack on the prevailing theological science, and on scholastics, but is this ‘testimony of the individual's conscience’ of great significance for the value of revealed truth? I think not. Mande defends his contemplative union with God and what he heard on this occasion, against the school which refuses to recognize this way. He is willing to accept belief in the Scriptures, but he himself knows even

1 Ed. G. Visser, Bijl. III p. 48.

2 G. Visser 28, 40, 80-83, 89; ed. Moll. 285.

3 Spoelhof 178-179.

[p. 43]

more and attaches greater value to it than to what the professors have deduced from them. Whether this brings him closer to the toleration-alists is very doubtful, since he recognizes this toleration only for himself and for similarly privileged persons, animated with the love of God and graced with union with God. He would certainly not extend this toleration to people not so privileged, for example to the sort of person with whom Geert Groote had to deal, and not even to the scholastic scholars. He is especially bitter towards those scholars who are fonder of the teachings of the pagan masters, Hippocrates, Galen, Socrates and Aristotle, than they are of the doctrine of Jesus Christ. They devote more time to the lies of the poets than thought to the truths of the Holy Scriptures. Often, even, they mock at these truths and persecute their own brothers and the good Christians whose only desire is to model their lives on the Gospel and the sacred teachings. He compares the professors with the Scribes and Pharisees, whom the Lord preached against. He admits however, that the upright faithful scholars and pious clerics are different. The pious and loving Christian holds the law in his heart and follows its precepts.¹

This is, in the meantime, a very violent attack on the whole scholastic philosophy, and that by someone who has no respect for learning (knowledge). For he says: ‘Since there is no limit to the number of books and treatises and each writes according to his conviction, let us listen to the wise man, to all the readings necessary for sanctity, that is: fear God with childlike fear and keep His commandments with love.’² This is the rejection of all learning, not of nonconformity or intolerance.

As is already evident from what has gone before, Mande repeatedly spoke contemptuously or critically of higher clerics and scholars. His most violent attack is found in a well-known example: Christ, seated in a corner and crowned with thorns, appears to a Brother in his cell. The two walls press against the crown and make it even more painful. The Brother gives Christ a pillow and then learns what the walls signify: one is the spiritual and the other the temporal state. The prelates of the Church should be the ornament of Christ's head, but they consider my wisdom which I have taught as ‘foolishness.’ They

1 Spoelhof 179.

2 G. Visser 89. ‘Ende want der boeken ende schriften geen getal en is, ende want een ygelic scrijft na sinen gevoelen, so laet ons te samen mit den wissen man ein eynd horen alre lezinge, die ons noet is tot onser salicheit; dat is gode ontsien ende vruchten (vrezen) mit den kijntliken anxte ende van mynnen sijn geboden houden.’

[p. 44]

have more respect for the commandments which they have made and oblige the faithful to keep them to satisfy their own avarice. The pagans of the state plead the example of the clerics and do as they do. Thereupon the vision disappeared. The Brother came to himself and prayed for mercy on all Christians.¹

This is an extremely acute passage which clearly illustrates Mande's concern for the Church. One might perhaps call it anti-clericalism,² but it seems to me more to reflect the mind of a pious man, retired from the world, who views everything somberly. On this point I can agree with Spoelhof, although anti-clericalism is not so frequently expressed in the books as Spoelhof suggests. I do not think, however, that he has proved that ‘By insisting that religion was principally a personal relationship to God, Mande questioned the whole institutional approach.’³ Or that: ‘By exalting the place of religious experience within the heart of the individual, he reduced reliance upon an exclusive body of dogma as a guide to divine truth.’⁴ He certainly does not prove that ‘by stressing the inner intent of the individual and not the outward appearance of an act, he undermined belief in the efficacy of the outward forms of the church,’⁵ although there may be grounds for supposing that ‘By thoroughly castigating the ecclesiastical overlords, he diminished respect for that authority which enforced conformity to Roman Catholicism.’ Finally, I do not agree with⁶: ‘In other words, he created a distance for all those elements within the scope of religion upon which intolerance can be based. It did not require the taking of a big step to bring Mande into the camp of the outspoken tolerationists.’⁷

This last point is illustrated by a new text,⁸ wrenched from its context and, moreover, translated somewhat tendentiously. The passage quoted does not deal with the tolerance of another's opinion in acts of faith, but with the evil deeds and words committed and spoken against God. Mande would have an answer for everything, but he wishes to confine himself to his own task, which is to honour God and accomplish his own salvation. He leaves the deeds of others to their own consciences, or those of the prelate or Our Lord, for God has said: Vengeance is mine etc. Then follows the text quoted by Spoelhof. It is concerned not with persecution but with dealing with

1 G. Visser, Bijl. III, p. 62-63.

2 Spoelhof 180.

3 Ibid., 181.

4 Ibid., 181-182.

5 Ibid., 182.

6 Ibid., 182.

7 Ibid., 182.

8 Visser, Bijl. IV. Spoelhof 182.

[p. 45]

our neighbour, with the preservation of love. There is thus no question of tolerance.

It must be proved, nor simply assumed that Mande absorbed the above mentioned ideas from the Brethren still less that this might not be an isolated case.

Spoelhof also deals with Gerlach Peters, without whom his book on religious non-conformity and religious toleration would not be complete. He does not, however, put forward any detail which would indicate that Gerlach in any way furthered non-conformity or toleration, except in exhorting to love. He certainly should have discussed what Gerlach's sister Lubbe Peters says of her brother: that he was particularly obedient and ready for every virtue in Windesheim. John Brinckering says that he felt happy for a week after hearing a mass said by Gerlach.¹ Gerlach had evidently found the secret of uniting the internal and the external. He exhorted his sister, one of the sisters of the Master Geertshuis in Deventer, to mortification and patience advising her not to concern herself overmuch with physical activities, but to offer herself perpetually to God.²

The last of this group of three is Thomas a Kempis. Spoelhof assumes that the Imitation of Christ reflects the spirit of the Brethren which the author had absorbed. We have already seen that the character of the spirit which Spoelhof attributes to the Imitation is not confirmed by the facts. He thinks that the Imitation expresses the mystic and theological, the social and ethical programme of the Brethren³ and sets out to discuss the meaning of the Imitation in this light.

He views first the negative aspect. Thomas never undermines the ties of conformity to Roman Catholicism. He ignores them and thus proposes the possibility of a tolerant attitude.⁴ He neglects the doctrine concerning the pope and the entire hierarchy.⁵ In discussing obedience he deals only with monastic obedience.⁶ He gives no apologia for the Roman Catholic Church and does not allude at all to the necessity for accepting the entire complex of dogma.⁷ To say that Thomas was not

1 Ed. D. de Man, 's-Gravenhage 1919, 17, 18. Hier beginnen sommige stichtige punten van onsen olden zusteren.

2 Ibid., 18.

3 Spoelhof 195.

4 Ibid., 196.

5 Ibid., 196.

6 Ibid., 197.

7 Ibid., 197.

[p. 46]

obliged to mention this, does not hold water (says Spoelhof), since Thomas does speak of other accepted principles.¹ He is silent on the hierarchy, but does mention another authority - his own heart. This practically invalidates the Church's task of mediator. The well-known texts on the futility of learning show that ‘he had nothing but contempt for scholastic formalism’ (assuming here that scholasticism knows only formalism).²

One must not conclude from this, however, that Thomas a Kempis condemned all learning: ‘that would have run counter to the spirit of the Brethren of Common Life.’ (N.B.) For them the religious life was based, not on dogma, but on practice, not on faith but on life,³ whereas in his time the emphasis was laid upon faith and upon the body of dogma, which the Church propounded. Thomas opposes this.⁴ He transfers the emphasis in religion from outward to inward faith. Faith thus ceases to be ecclesiastic and becomes individual.⁵ This description by Spoelhof is based in fact upon the authority of Mestwerdt. The spirit of the Imitation is mentioned in the trial of John Pistorius and of each of the other victims.⁶ Thomas has not the slightest respect for the outward life unless it is joined with the inward.⁷ Every opus operatum quality must disappear, for the Church exercised control in the name of these acts.⁸ Thomas rejects nothing of the outward life, but the significance of the external depends on the conditions within the heart.⁹ Here begins the positive exposition of Thomas' schema:

‘If Thomas had completely divorced the subjective from the objective religious experience, he would have made a very poor representation of the Brethren of the Common Life. He realized, as did all the Brethren, that religious experience could not achieve its purpose if it failed to infuse the objective or outward life with some of the devotion inherent in the subjective.’¹⁰ ‘Thomas was a practical mystic.’ In four books he recommends self denial, love of one's neighbour, and the acquisition of virtue above knowledge.¹¹ Is all this new? Is this characteristic for the Brethren of the Common Life? Spoelhof admits himself that: ‘the contribution of Thomas a Kempis and of the Imitation to religious toleration must be considered as being principally

1 Spoelhof, 198.

2 Ibid., 199.

3 Ibid., 200.

4 Ibid., 201.

5 Ibid., 210.

6 Ibid., 202.

7 Ibid., 203.

8 Ibid., 203.

9 Ibid., 204.

10 Ibid., 205-206.

11 Ibid., 206.

[p. 47]

indirect.’¹ There are a few distorted data which might indicate religious toleration and Spoelhof quotes one from a sermon, not from the Imitation.² The Imitation exhorts more to virtue. These data show only that Thomas's spirit inclined towards toleration.³ His disciples must carry on the work. In conclusion Spoelhof says that the Brethren and the Devotio Moderna only give the basis for ‘religious toleration,’ namely practical mysticism.⁴ But, he adds, (and this, to my mind, is not proved): ‘Outward forms of religious worship were viewed as being merely relative. The inner religious experience counts more than mere subscription to a body of dogmas.’⁵ They applied their ethical principle to the Church. They sought more a holy than a Catholic Church. The use of the vernacular too, indicates individual religion. All this is in fact a revolt against the methods by which the Church exercised control over her members.⁶ This tendency towards religious toleration revealed itself among the Brethren but also to a certain extent in the first monastic phase. It was, however, widely disseminated by the teaching and preaching of the Brethren.

In actual fact, Spoelhof has not proved that these principles obtained among the Brethren: only two of the fratres are discussed. So far as the Windesheimers are concerned, only in the case of Henry Mande are any significant texts quoted. Furthermore, the Brethren did no teaching for a hundred years and can thus scarcely have propagated in the schools the ideas attributed to them. Whether they still retained the same ideas around 1480-1490, or whether perhaps these were propagated more by others than by themselves, remains for the present uncertain.

The last two chapters are devoted to Wessel Gansfort and are intended principally to prove that the spirit of the Brethren described above, survived during the 15th century until the rise of Humanism. Thus, there existed among the Brethren a related condition of mind. Spoelhof discusses first: The fusion of the spirit of the Brethren of the Common Life and Dutch Humanism. Wessel Gansfort (chapter VI) Concepts of religious non-conformity and religious toleration in the teachings of Wessel Gansfort (chapter VII).

The exposition is important both independently and in connection with the problem under discussion here. We shall return to it again.

1 Spoelhof, 206.

2 Ibid., 207.

3 Ibid., 208.

4 Ibid., 208.

5 Ibid., 209.

6 Ibid., 210.

[p. 48]

We must draw attention here, however, to an incomprehensible lacuna in Spoelhof's story of Wessel Gansfort's life. This boy from Groningen went to Zwolle at the age of 13, found lodgings in one of the Brethren's hospices (domus parva) and followed the lessons in the city school, completing both the second and first i.e. the highest classes. When his schooldays were over at about the age of 20, ca. 1439, he was appointed master in the city school, to teach the third class (our fourth?).

He continued to live in the same hostel, on equal terms with the boys, accompanying them to the chapel and to the collation of Rutger the procurator, explaining what was important.¹ This lasted for about 10 years. From 1449 to 1476 he studied, taught or debated at various universities, Cologne, Heidelberg, Louvain, Paris. In 1470 and 1473 he visited Italy, returning then to the Netherlands where he stayed part of the time in Zwolle, certainly visited the Agnietenberg, but lived in Groningen with the sisters. He died in Groningen in 1489. Spoelhof, however, speaks only of the influence of the Brethren of the Common Life and of Humanism, ignoring the entire University period of 25 years (1449-ca. 1475). Only at the end will he have come into some contact with Italian Humanism in Italy, although we possess few details. But at the universities he moved in philosophical and theological circles and joined in the conflict between the realists and moderns, supporters of the old way and the new. He was first and foremost a theologian, and during his 25 best years he garnered the ideas which are to be found in his books and which Spoelhof has systematically set forth. It is thus completely wrong simply to introduce Gansfort's theological concepts as characteristic of the Brethren of the Common Life, and as a continuation of what Spoelhof imagines he has found in the works of Geert Groote, the Brethren and the three Windesheimers. This is especially so since these are points which found scarcely any echo in the works of Geert Groote and which were so far removed from the Brethren of the 15th century that we can safely assume they had never heard of them. The whole question becomes even more distorted if one simply assumes that Gansfort's ideas were adopted by the Brethren of the second half of the century, and attempts to describe, by what Wessel taught, the ideas which they would have had when the first Humanists made themselves heard in the Netherlands.

At this point I shall conclude my discussion of Spoelhof's book and

1 Schoengen, 156.

[p. 49]

with it this introduction. The differences of opinion obtaining among the authors discussed, who may be considered representative of the opinions prevailing in this field, show clearly that one must attempt, utilizing all available data, to obtain a more exact insight into the significance of Geert Groote and of his foundations - notably the Brethren. All kinds of ideas and motives are attributed to them, yet we know so little of them. How did they live, how did they think, how did they work? It is time to view these questions lucidly and to cease writing only in superlatives.