The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

N. Action against the Building of Utrecht Cathedral and the cathedral Tower

The first subject dealt with in this section is one for which the treatises, on account of their greater detail, are more important than those letters which have come down to us. This is so, not only in the case of Utrecht cathedral, but also for Groote's struggle against the focarists, against marriage under certain circumstances, and in certain smaller matters. These treatises resemble each other in this respect, that they all show a rigoristic tendency, are based mainly on legal arguments and proceed from a somewhat narrow, albeit utterly straight mind. This section deals with the contents of a document which Peter Horn classifies among Groote's works under the title: Contra magna et superflua edificia, and which the 16th century catalogue of Bunderius calls Contra turrim Traiectensem and ascribes to the same author.¹ On the basis of this data Tiecke assumed that two works existed. This now appears to be incorrect. The book was lost for five centuries, which did not prevent various authors from rendering some of the contents on the basis of the title. Now that the treatise has reappeared, they seem not to have been entirely wrong. The work was found in an archive in Germany and photographs were sent to me. On the basis of these I have published the book.² I judge the writing to date from the beginning of the 15th century and from the various corrections and mistakes we may assume that we are not dealing with an autograph of Groote's work, but with a copy. I am convinced that there can be no question of a forgery. The piece has no title, but on the last page is

1 J.G.J. Tiecke, De werken van Geert Groote, Diss. Nijmegen 1941, 225.

2 Geert Groote's tractaat Contra Turrim Traiectensem teruggevonden, 's-Gravenhage 1966.

[p. 125]

found: ‘explicit opus venerabilis viri magistri gerardi de daventria dyaconi contra magna edificia superflua ac constitutiones falsas principaliter contra turrim traiectensen.’ This sentence stands apart from the end of the text and seems to me to have been added in a different hand from the rest but still in the beginning of the fifteenth century. The mention of the name of Gerard Groote, Gerardus de Daventria diaconus is unusual and does not occur in the letters, neither in the initia nor the explicit of the manuscripts of Groote's other works, insofar as printed by Tiecke. The name Groote or Magnus was evidently so well known that its mention enhanced the authority of certain works. It is more puzzling to explain why the author here is called Gerardus de Daventria, without Magnus. It may have been written by someone who knew Groote under this name, in university circles for example. There is no doubt, however, in my mind, that Groote is intended. The explicit given in the manuscript joins the two titles already mentioned: Contra magna et superflua aedificia (P. Horn) and contra turrim Traiectensem (Bunderius)¹ by adding in between: ac institutiones falsas, thus making it complete.

For Groote did not object only to the large and sumptuous church buildings and to the lofty cathedral tower. His principal objection was to the constitutions of bishop John of Arkel (1342-1364), promulgated at various synods. They were intended to strengthen the church fabric, that is the funds from which the building must be financed. Groote, for the rest, could not do much at this stage to alter the construction plans or to prevent the building's completion. ‘The tower,’ wrote Groote, ‘already exceeded in height the other towers of nearly the whole of christendom, but would have to be built even higher, turris ultra ceteras omnes fere in christianitate turres ad miram deductam altitudinen altius adhuc extollendam, while what remained, the choir and the other parts of the building were already drawn up as to cost and size’.² The church was already built in part and decorated so that the church services might be held in a fitting manner.³

These are the only, and for that matter, quite valuable details for the building of the cathedral tower, from which we must deduce when Groote wrote this treatise. The history of the construction of the cathedral tower is not known in detail but only in general lines. Work was done on the tower from 1321 to 1382. According to an inscription

1 Tiecke, 225-230.

2 Geert Groote's tractaat etc., 24.

3 Ibid., 28.

[p. 126]

in the tower usually considered to be reliable, it was completed in 1382.¹ The church seems already to have been begun in 1254, and was certainly started in 1288. The choir was the first section constructed. Nowadays different construction periods are distinguished. Groote's time falls shortly after the third construction period, from 1325 to roughly 1360 and before the commencement of the fourth period, 1396. Groote must have seen the choir and the transept for the greater part complete and joined to the existing church of bishop Adelbold which was already old at this time. He could thus say that the church was already built and decorated so that the church services could take place in a fitting manner and that the remainder, namely the choir and the remaining sections of the building, were both costly and grandiose in design. Taking all these factors together, one can deduce that Groote wrote his treatise before, and indeed well before, 1382, since the tower was already high but must be built still higher. The top part still had to be put in position and this had already been done in 1382.²

If the construction of the cathedral and of the tower originally inspired Groote's argument, the greater part of the treatise is taken up with the struggle against the constitutions of bishop John of Arkel concerning the means to strengthen financially the church fabric of the cathedral. In his treatise he sums up thus the measures proposed by bishop John of Arkel: the less rightfully acquired goods and monies (the so-called male or minus iuste quaesita), those from shipwrecks (probably flotsam), goods for restitution when it was not certain to whom this restitution must be made; further the general gifts and legacies for pious purposes, if these latter were not more strictly defined. All these had to be allocated to the church fund of St. Martin under pain of excommunication, until the church and tower were completed. In addition, all those who owed money to the church building funds and did not pay, or who deprived the church of any of the above mentioned sources of income, would be punished by excommunication latae sententiae. These decrees were indeed promulgated by bishop John of Arkel at the synods of 1340 and 1347 and in two undated letters.³ On

1 J.W.C. van Campen, De opschriften van de Domtoren, Jaarboekjes van ‘Oud-Utrecht’, 1951, 46. E.J. Haslinghuis en C.J.A. Peters, De Dom van Utrecht, 's-Gravenhage 1965, 459; Na MCCC en twe en tachtig was ic volmact, zo men ziet waerachti(ch).

2 E.J. Haslinghuis en C.J.A.C. Peters, De dom van Utrecht, 's-Gravenhage 1965, 337-340.

3 Bronnen voor de geschiedenis der kerkelijke rechtsspraak in het bisdom Utrecht in de Middeleeuwen door J.J.C. Joosting en S. Muller Hzn. Vierde afdeling. Provinciale en synodale statuten. Vijfde afdeling. Sendrechten door J.J.C. Joosting V. 's-Gravenhage 1914. Werken van de vereniging tot uitgave der bronnen van het Oud-vaderlandsche Recht. Tweede reeks XVI, 110, 115, 116, 137.

[p. 127]

two points they went even further than Groote's summary. Bishop John of Arkel also established that priests who were present at the drawing up of wills whereby legacies were made to the church building fund, must reveal this to the bishop at the next spring synod, and that a quarter of all collections and legacies obtained by the parish priests must go to the building fund. It is striking that Groote did not react to these points. The first means in actuality a violation of secrecy, if indeed it was intended that the contents of such wills should be revealed before the death of the testator. The second was a rather radical interference in the purpose of the collections and in the rights of the parish priest. Groote, however, will not have troubled about such points since, in his view, the clergy had to build the churches by virtue of the general church law. This decree of the bishop's was thus rather in accord with Groote's own ideas and he did not wish to contest it.

Groote argued that these decrees were illegal, for all sorts of juridical reasons which he mentions at the beginning of his argument and later elaborates. The law is unjust since it is not derived from the eternal law of God, and furthermore because it lacks three conditions. It is not directed at the general good, all subjects are not dealt with equally or in justice and the bishop is not competent to make such decrees. Now, according to Augustine, Ambrose and Isidore, an unjust law has no legal power. This law is thus not binding on the conscience and need not be kept by anyone, unless this should give rise to greater dangers or scandal. The real basis of Groote's argument is that the aim of the constitution is wrong, that is, the construction of inordinately large and really superfluous buildings. These are motivated by pride and vanity. The lofty tower also occasioned among the burghers and strangers visiting Utrecht, proud and vain thoughts. The building moreover costs a great deal of money, which could better be given to the poor. This is a theme which Groote elaborates in detail and for which he could cite Augustine, Jerome, Isidore and Bernard. He found the texts of the first three in the Decretum Gratiani, and that of Bernard in the latter's own works. Several of these doctores condemned the construction of over-large and luxurious churches but approved the acquiring of sacred vessels made of gold, since these could be melted down in case of need in order to ‘feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty.’ What was invested in the buildings, however, could not be

[p. 128]

recovered. He also thought that various goods and incomes were given to the priests of the new Covenant (unlike the Old) so that they might be able to use them to build churches. This was their duty under the general church law. As regards the bishop's lack of competence he was of the opinion that the agreement of the general chapter (i.e. the collective chapter of the five churches of Utrecht) would have been necessary and that this was not mentioned in the documents. The bishop had no authority either to make such radical decrees, since this power was reserved for the pope. He forgets, however, to mention in this connection that the episcopal decrees had been promulgated at least twice at a diocesan synod at which the general chapter was present, and that on the other hand bishop John had recourse to the full powers of the pope granted to the bishops at the Council of Vienne. Groote's argument thus, seems not entirely devoid of sophism.

In my opinion the writing of this piece did Groote no credit. Despite his plea for the poor, the whole is characteristic of a narrow mind, although he was able to cite illustrious historical examples. The only question is, under what circumstances did they compose the texts quoted by Groote. It is well known, for example, that St. Bernard poured the vials of his wrath particularly over the abbey of Cluny, a monastery to which the earliest Cistercians had so violently objected for monastic motives. A cathedral in a prosperous city was a different matter altogether from a monastery church, although no one regrets today what was accomplished in Cluny. The monies which bishop John of Arkel wished to collect quickly belonged either to the cathedral or to nobody, or were voluntarily offered for the church building fund. Leaving aside the heavy church penalties imposed for tardiness in handing over the money, the gathering in of these goods seems more rational than the preaching of indulgences and the assignment of the offerings thus obtained to the church.

It is true that pride in these large, beautiful buildings and rivalry between the bishops, priests and cities of the various dioceses will have played their part in this zeal for construction. But is this not a justifiable pride, a justifiable zeal, provided they are not carried to absurdity? Can this be said of the cathedral of Utrecht? I think not. The contents of the document seem fairly grave. It is quite simply a declaration that no one need pay any attention to this synodal decree of the bishop, and this in a matter which, to judge by the repetition of his decrees, was very dear to the bishop's heart. Did this not constitute insubordination and an incitement to insubordination in others? On the other hand,

[p. 129]

however, the question remains: did Groote ever actually publish this piece? Is the fact that up, till now, only one manuscript has even been discovered, perhaps explained by assuming that Groote retained the document himself? It must indeed have at some time passed out of his hands, for the manuscript we possess is not an autograph. Groote may perhaps have given it to somebody in confidence; perhaps it was only copied after his death. On the other hand it was not Groote's way to keep silent about his convictions. In 1383 he dared to preach before the entire clergy concerning the legal consequences of having focariae, and later organized the copying of the treatise contra focaristas. If the piece was written and published before 1379, which might be assumed on the basis of the remarks concerning the state of construction and the building history of the cathedral, it would be difficult to understand how this man, as deacon, obtained the favour of preaching in the diocese. If however the work was written and published later, then the apparent lack of reaction constitutes an enigma. One would imagine that the vicarius in pontificalibus would surely not have invited the writer of such a pamphlet to give the opening sermon before the assembled synod. A man of some renown was usually chosen for this honour. The theory that Groote might have published the piece after the suspension of his permission to preach, gives rise to even greater difficulties. In such circumstances he would surely only have been cutting his own throat. Moreover, we possess various personal statements by Groote and his friends dating from this period, and nowhere is there any allusion to the publication of this treatise. The simplest solution is to assume that Groote indeed wrote the treatise, but did not publish it, although there are also objections to this. It would then mean that Groote believed in the opinion expressed but did not consider it opportune to declare his opinion openly. Such a supposition would not be without importance in judging the man and his work, but it remains doubtful. One might conclude that it is a falsification placed in the mouth of the deacon Gerard of Deventer in order to silence him once and for all. Such a conclusion is however, not tenable in my opinion. The style and content of the document betray Groote's custom and erudition.