The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 176]

Chapter Two
How is Groote's Life described in the Earlier Vitae?

The title of this chapter might be put more acutely: What have the biographers made of Groote's life? As already indicated in passing in the previous chapter, I have not kept here to the usual method of historiography, that of giving the story or the picture after all the facts have been assembled and coordinated. There were two reasons for attempting a different method. In the first place, those Vitae which have come down to us were written respectively 37, 45, and around 60 and 70 to 80 years after the death of the hero. In the second place we must take into account the possibility that the biographies were adapted to new or subtly different ideals. For such Vitae as a rule were not written for purely scholarly purposes, nor to make clear to the reader the course of the hero's life in all its motives and aspects. On the contrary, the chief aim of the biographers is to reveal what example has been given by the person in question or even perhaps what types of example were most appreciated in their day. This does not mean that the biographers conjured their Vitae out of thin air, but they selected and stressed what they considered most worthy of imitation in their own time and for their readers, and they may perhaps have coloured these facts.

The letters and books, on the other hand, reveal Groote as he was before the legend grew up about him. Since this present study deals critically with various questions, it seemed a good plan to keep separate the two kinds of sources, the letters and books on the one hand and the Vitae on the other. In my opinion too much reliance has often been placed on the Vitae, as if they possessed as much conclusive force as the letters.

As is known we possess two rhymed texts. One of these can be left out of consideration here since it can scarcely be called a Vita Gerardi Magni but rather a panegyric on Geert Groote, Florens Radewijns, the Sisters and Brethren of the Common Life and the Congregation of Windesheim. Of the 565 lines, 186 are concerned with Groote, but without mentioning any concrete matters.¹ Thus there remains in fact

1 Ed. by T. Brandsma, O.G.E. 16 (1942) 39-51.

[p. 177]

only one rhymed text, the work of an unknown writer who was however attached as donatus to the monastery of Windesheim.¹ There exist in addition three prose texts, one by Thomas a Kempis,² one by Rudolf Dier,³ and one by Peter Horn.⁴ There has been some discussion on the relationship between these texts and their reliability. N.J. Kühler broached the subject in the preface to his edition of Peter Horn's Vita. He thought then that Peter Horn was indebted to Thomas a Kempis. Later he defended a different opinion. He assumed that one Vita had existed and been lost, perhaps the work of John Cele. This Vita would have been used in turn by the poet of the rhymed text, by Thomas a Kempis, by Peter Horn and by Rudolf Dier. Van Ginneken applied the results of Kühler's theories in his Geert Groote's Levensbeeld naar de oudste gegevens verwerkt.⁵ At the same time and without knowing what had been done elsewhere on this subject, the writer of this present study published in Studia Catholica an article entitled De onder linge verhouding van de vier oude vitae Gerardi Magni en haar betrouwbaarheid.⁶ In my opinion the arguments for assuming a Vita deperdita are insufficient. Moreover, such an assumption in no way resolves the difficulties of the interrelationship of the earlier Vitae. I still maintain today the conclusion reached in 1942-43. The rhymed text is the earliest Vita, completed in the year 1421. Then comes the Vita of Rudolf Dier, probably between 1420 and 1430.⁷ He did not use the rhymed text and represents an independent tradition. The work is admittedly brief, but very reliable. About twenty years later Thomas a Kempis, living on the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle, wrote a life of Groote. He too represents a distinct and independent tradition. The existing, but extremely slight similarity to the rhymed text is not sufficient reason to assume that a Kempis had recourse to this text and still less that he was dependent on it. He diverges from the poet in various statements. There is no particular ground for doubting Thomas's veracity, which does not preclude the

1 Ed. by V. Becker, De Katholiek 90 (1886) 199-207. After another MS by T. Brandsma, O.G.E. 16 (1942) 32-37. The numbering of the lines differs somewhat. Here the last edition is used.

2 Ed. by M.J. Pohl, VII, 1922, 33-83.

3 Ed. by G. Dumbar, Analecta, I 1719, 1-12.

4 Ed. by W.J. Kühler, Nederl. archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, Nieuwe Serie, 6 (1909) 325-370.

5 Verhandelingen, Ned. Ak. Wet. Afd. Letterk. N.R. 47, no. 2, Amsterdam 1942.

6 Archief ... aartsbisdom Utrecht, 18 (1942) 313-336 and 19 (1943) 9-20.

7 According to G. Dumbar on the basis of notes by a Brother made in 1448; which would not be impossible: the reference, however, is to the entire scriptum.

[p. 178]

possibility that he chose the material himself and may have dealt with it at length or in brief as he felt inclined.

The Vita of Horn on the contrary, is a compilation of the three earlier ones and of a few other pieces. Peter Horn's Vita is of little significance. He does not represent an independent tradition and gives very little that we do not know from other sources. The addition of certain dubious or untrue statements, the omission of other concrete and true details, the attempt to render the prophecies less vague and to apply them to particular persons cause us to view with scepticism those points on which Horn in any way differs from the other sources such as the Vitae of Dier and Thomas.¹ But despite this unreliability in the historical sense of the word this Vita can be extremely important for our investigation. Since Horn probably wrote around 1460-70 it might be that his work reveals the ideal image of Groote as conceived at this particular time.

All the same it seems strange that no Life was written earlier than so many decades after Groote's death. This man who, by his sudden conversion, his writings and preaching, his founding of houses for Brethren and Sisters, his criticism of the existing Church conditions and his war against sin, had aroused so much sensation, had made so many friends as well as enemies, and was suddenly compelled to give up preaching after four years' work, dying unexpectedly a year later and leaving behind him a group of disciples who continued his work - surely such a man deserved earlier recognition? Had he been forgotten? Did no one dare write his Life? Was no one competent to do so? There was at least one of the Brethren who could write, namely Gerard Zerbold, and there were several among the first Windesheimers, for example Henry Mande or a little later Thomas a Kempis. One may ponder on this question, but it is difficult to suggest any well-founded solution. It happens not infrequently, however, that an important man's biography is not written until some time after his death. In the first years the disciples and followers may have felt no need of a written Life. They were all familiar with Groote's main deeds and aims. They gladly continued what he had begun and no one felt himself impelled to set down all the events of his life and what he had accomplished. Various stories about his life and work must have been current. Several letters were soon collected. The works were difficult to read. The rector of the Brethren and the Prior of Windesheim will on occasion have

1 Studia Catholica, 19 (1943) 19-20.

[p. 179]

commemorated Groote in their addresses, thereby stressing in particular his example for imitation.¹ Gradually a picture of him must have been formed in the minds of his followers, a picture of his life, with details of his study, his behaviour at the University, his benefices, his sudden conversion, his visit to Ruusbroec, his stay in Monnikhuizen, his preaching afterwards as deacon, and his struggle against the heretics of Kampen and against the focarists in Utrecht with the well known consequences. These facts became the canvas into which the later authors could weave their strands of information, imparting to each a different colour.

The facts indicated above are also mentioned in the rhymed text, but it is not the poet's aim to celebrate these facts. He uses them rather to hold up Groote as an example. The family's prosperity, the brilliant study in Paris, the worldly life, rendered the conversion all the more remarkable (lines 5 to 27). A more important point is that according to the poet the conversion was predicted in Cologne and Arnhem (perhaps a slip of the pen for Aachen) (lines 27 to 42). Then follows the story of the conversion, evident from Groote's resigning of his benefices and the greater part of his property (43-56), and the description of his further life, the putting into practice of the contemptus mundi (line 57). He is an apostle, a second Augustine, whose mortification and humility are celebrated in several lines (57-76). This man worked day and night, assisted many with advice; this humblest of magisters did not despise the vernacular, but translated books by John Ruusbroec and John of Leeuwen, cook at Groenendaal, into Latin. He did not worry about who said a thing, but about what was said. He was always busy and journeyed much, but guarded his eyes lest his spirit be tainted. He was the same for poor and rich alike and fought against the failings of clergy and people. He was pure, prayed his breviary and began thereby spontaneously to sing (77-102). He could perform miracles - the liberation of Deventer at his prayer - yet he sought no display. But no one could resist his urging (103-116).

A brief mention is made of the sermon Contra focaristas and his action against the heretics in Kampen: hereticorum est malleus (117-119); he shows his humility by asking younger people for advice and by beginning to preach for schoolboys (119-126). He had several revelations

1 On may add to this the words of the prior of Windesheim at a meeting of the then Windesheimers and fraters. See J. Busch, Chronicon Windeshemensi 47, 48, or the letter of William Vornken in J.G.R. Acquoy, Het klooster te Windesheim en zijn invloed, 3 dln. III Utrecht, 1880, 235-255.

[p. 180]

(the death of Ruusbroec, the end of Purgatory for another, the disaster of heretical Kampen (127-142)). The devil visibly harassed him (141-144). He also made predictions which came to pass: two persons would become priests, the conversion of a brother, another's entry into a monastery, a holy death (147-158). Knowing that the Devotionalists and the simple were hated by the worldlings, he came to their aid by founding Windesheim (161-173). He continued his labours. Stricken by the plague, he predicted his approaching death (176-181). He died, leaving behind him books but no money; the tomb (183-185). The remaining lines deal with the Congregation of the Brethren and the monastery and chapter of Windesheim (187-239).

Only 185 lines are devoted to the life of Geert Groote, and most of these refer to his virtue, his mortification, his humility, his industry, his joyfulness, his prophecies and wonders, and to the devil's opposition. The author must have been familiar with the most significant aspects of Groote's life, his study, conversion, solitude, apostolate, sermon against the focarists and heretics, but these serve only to describe the virtues they reveal. His study is mentioned, as well as the fact that he left books behind him, but his erudition, his extensive knowledge of the law and its application in certain treatises such as the Sermo contra focaristas, or De matrimonio, Contra aedificia superflua, or the schism, these are passed over in silence, as are his actions against the custom of bringing dowries and against the proprietarii. There is no reference either to his astrological studies.

Rudolf Dier¹ has a decidedly more concrete approach than the poet and a more sober view of the facts. His account of Groote's birth, family, life in Paris, conversion and his renouncing of house and benefices form a good historical exposition. Then, however, he begins his description of Groote's humility and mortification and here the legend has evidently begun to play its part. Groote exchanged his worldly dress for a humble habit (habitus), with a penitential garment over it and a hair shirt underneath. He cooks his meals himself - and in order to gain more time for reading and prayer he often cooks peas, because, they are easy to do. When they were ready he dropped a salt fish in, making a sort of fish stew. Rudolf Dier also tells a few stories which he had heard from certain people: from Lubbert ten Bosch, ‘I was once asked to a meal, and then he fetched a piece of cold cooked beef from under the table and gave this to his guest and we ate it up together.’

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, 1-12.

[p. 181]

Dirk Gruter, a teacher in Deventer, saw Groote with a wretched wornout cloak (almutius) and offered him a good one. Groote, however, refused to accept it and said: ‘Would you deprive me of my poverty?’ Another person saw Groote with a tunic, worn and torn by age and said: ‘Why do you walk about in that state when there is no need?’ ‘I do this, not because I have no better but in order to be able to conquer myself.’¹

In his brief biography Rudolf Dier devotes enough space to the description of this exercise of humility and poverty. Its significance only becomes clear when we see how much value the first Brethren attached to such humility in dress (see p. 241). Dier further informs us that Groote went to church with two cloaks and how he had a separate apartment in the Franciscan Church which could be entirely closed off, while through a window he could see the Holy Sacrament during the Consecration and receive the pax.² He also tells us who Groote's confessor was and to whom he had once made a general confession. On this point too, Groote gave an example, but this is merely an intermission, for Dier continues the story of Groote's humility. Groote once went to Paris in a worn or penitential garment in order to buy books. The narrative then proceeds to Groote's visit to Ruusbroec; his sermon there; his consecration as a deacon; his fear of becoming a priest, his Sermon contra focaristas at the Synod of Utrecht and the method of announcing when Groote came to preach anywhere. All this may be accepted as a sober historical narrative, but he intersperses it with accounts of how the devil harassed Groote and raised a storm on the Zuiderzee, whereby Groote's books barely escaped destruction.³ His remarks about the struggle against the heretics in Kampen are also enlivened with a prediction: that Christ would conquer the walls of the city - which really came to pass since Christ dwells there in the religious and the devout.⁴ It was the inhabitants of Kampen who had him prohibited from preaching. In the period of quiet which followed Groote translated, according to R. Dier, the hours of the Holy Virgin, the seven penitential psalms and the office for the dead from Latin into Dutch. He wrote a short explanation to some of the psalms. Dier thinks too that Groote also composed a litany on the seven psalms.

1 Dumbar, Analecta, 3-4.

2 Cf. on this p. 186. Groote considered this as a spiritual communion.

3 Dumbar, Analecta 3.

4 Ibid., 6.

[p. 182]

The Sisters still use these translations and litany.¹ This is an important piece of information since the fact was not known from the letters, whereas the texts themselves have been preserved.² The Sisters thus prayed some of the hours and other prayers in Dutch. I should not dare to state whether this was revolutionary, others may have begun the same thing earlier. The Sisters of the older orders may have been somewhat better educated than the many tertiaries. But whether or not he was the first, it was an important improvement and Groote obtained good results on this point for a long period. It may be, however, that these hours and certainly the seven penitential psalms and the litany were employed for private devotion alongside the officium divinum, the hours of the Church. Another example to be imitated was Groote's custom of offering himself to the Lord several times during the day. He accused himself once of only having done this ten times on a particular day. In the evenings he and his companions usually assembled to pray: an examination of conscience whereby they accused each other of shortcomings if any had been noticed.³ This too was later a common practice among the Brethren. Groote, say Rudolf Dier, had shown them the way.⁴ He then refers to the good results obtained by the preaching, life and example of Groote. Then follow some important facts concerning the first Fraters which we will refer to presently. Groote again makes a prediction: the conversion of Henry of Höxter, and also that John of Höxter after death walked up and down in his room, draped in a beautiful garment. Another example of Groote's humility: he had the custom of talking Latin with his companions under pain of penalty, namely that anyone who spoke Dutch should kneel down and kiss the floor. It so happened that Master Geert was caught speaking Dutch with his brothers. They dared not draw his attention to this, out of respect, but they smiled. He understood then and immediately fell to the ground and kissed it.⁵ On seeing John of Heusden Groote foretold his future. He did something similar for Florens Radewijns. Then follows the information concerning the two houses, on his property and his books. These were given to the community, while according to the law it would be a joint property, held by three persons. This college would choose another whenever one fell out.

1 Dumbar, Analecta, 7.

2 Cf. on this p. 166.

3 Dumbar, Analecta, 6-7.

4 It must be remarked that this was not a confession of sins. No one confessed anything but each accused the other if he had been at fault.

5 Dumbar, Analecta 8.

[p. 183]

The books would have to be freely lent out.¹ Dier subsequently mentions that Groote had written down his sins on a piece of paper, ordering his pupils to burn it immediately after his death. This they did, but some disapproved of this action in the hope and trust that they would find on the paper various revelations of God to Groote. He did not wish them to be made known, perhaps in order not to seem full of vainglory, even though it was after his death. In the well known story of Groote's illness and death Dier mentions that Groote rejoiced in the hope for the future and despised all that was temporal.² A final point: after his death in Deventer a preacher in Zutphen proclaimed his joy at Groote's death: ‘I tell you fresh rumours: Mr. Geert who by his journeys through the land led the people into error, is dead.’ But he has scarcely said these words before he collapsed and had to be carried away.³

In giving all these exact and concrete details of Groote's life Dier loses no opportunity of depicting Groote as an example for his pupils, an extremely humble man and much given to self mortification, who made prophecies. A man of God who caused miraculous things to happen. He makes no mention of Groote's many activities, says little of his scholarship except that he forswore astrology. He also passes over any reaction against his sermon in Utrecht and his work to rid the monasteries of the proprietarii. No matter how sober this Vita is it remains a glorification of the deceased, a small panegyric. The writer assumes that the Brotherhood exists, but does not say how it originated. One finds nothing about education or ‘hostels’ for schoolboys. A teacher, Dirk Gruter, seems to have been friendly with Groote. The Vita has already suffered the influence of the legend. Groote is adapted to the ideals of the living: mortification, humility, little learning, a certain amount of activity but predominantly a retiring and religious life.

The life of Groote written by Thomas a Kempis comprises about fifty pages in the edition of M.J. Pohl.⁴ It is thus much longer than the other two put together, but does not give many more particulars. Around the well known facts, rather vaguely expressed, Thomas weaves his sermon for the novices of the monastery on the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle. Groote is held up as a model. In this he is complying with a request by one of the novices who wished to hear something of the first fathers by whom the Modern Devotion was brought to flower. He

1 Dumbar, Analecta, 9.

2 Ibid., 10.

3 Ibid., 10-11.

4 Opera omnia, VII 31-84.

[p. 184]

wishes to hear particularly of their virtues, so that he may be aroused to strive more ardently and more zealously after virtue. Thomas is only too pleased to expound on these good examples and in particular on the life of Geert Groote. Although he did not know him personally, he has heard sufficient about his happy activities. He touches briefly on family and education; of more importance is the conversion, the change from the old life to a status of new conversatio, a more or less monastic way of life which amounts to a contempt for the world (contemptus mundi) and the humble imitation of Christ. Not only did he teach the rules of orthodox belief, but by his pious example restored the holy monastic life (sancta religio).¹ He was successful in his studies in Paris. He was a magister at the age of 18 and in due course received benefices, including one in Aachen. He sought not the glory of Christ but to make a name for himself and for human renown. He walked the broad paths of this world.² Then comes the conversion, predicted by a hermit in Cologne and brought to pass by a monk, namely the prior of Monnikhuizen, Henry of Calcar. He feared that the erudite magister would perish in the world. The world was then in a sorry state. There were but few who showed by word and deed that they understood the word of life and even fewer who aspired to abstinence. Even the name of the monastic life and devotion was tottering, except for the Carthusians.³ The prior wished to save Groote from the saeculi fluctibus and so praised the monastery, rejected the course of the world and showed that everything is fleeting. His efforts were crowned with success. God gave his blessing to Groote whom He predestined from all eternity to join himself to Him.⁴ The conversion which quickly followed was revealed by Groote's renouncing his benefices and adopting the dress of a simple cleric. In other words he preferred contempt for the world to wealth. His actions aroused much comment but he paid no heed and did not allow himself to be turned from his purpose by a friend from the prosperous middle classes. He retired to Monnikhuizen, was given a cell as a guest and followed the ordinary life of the monastery. This is described as a joy and a purification from the old life and rendered attractive for the listeners.

Chapter III describes the monastic life in detail, plainly as an ideal to be imitated by the novice who here begins to join in the conversation: ‘Who are the enemies of the monastery, master?’ ‘The desires of the flesh, the attractions of the world and the temptations of the devil.’

1 Pohl VII, 33, 34.

2 Ibid., 35.

3 Ibid., 37.

4 Ibid., 39.

[p. 185]

After Geert's death a pious sister found his penitential garment (cilium) and felt it with her hand. It was long and rough and had many knots in order to increase the penance.¹

Groote did not remain in the monastery. Men of understanding and the monks themselves told him to go and preach. Thomas defends this decision but does his best to prevent the novice from wishing to follow this example. The master was fitted for preaching but less strong to bear the burdens of monastic life. He had learned to walk the way of humility and to despise the things of the world.² Then follows a general description of Groote's teaching. Opposition comes from the part of the amatores mundi and from the pleasure-seekers. Worse still, certain prelates and wandering monks (religiosi circumvagantes) were intolerant of his teaching and his zeal for sinners. They begin to slander him, as appears from a letter.³ He then describes the opposition Groote met with in Kampen and the prohibition from preaching whereby Groote even takes the part of the people of Kampen.⁴ He had books copied by schoolboys to whom he proclaimed the word of God whenever they came to him. He paid them in instalments so that he might see them oftener. In general he preferred to preach for the simple than for the educated.⁵ Opposition from a Dominican who wished to lay a charge against Groote in Rome but died on the way, was compensated by the defence offered by another famous preacher of the same order. In telling the story of the visit to Ruusbroec in Groenendaal Thomas does not forget to remark that Groote and his companions had no eyes for the tall and interesting buildings but regarded only the signs of simplicity and poverty which were the first traces of our King, the King of Heaven, who was born in poverty of the Virgin. Ruusbroec, informed by divine revelation, received Master Gerard with the utmost cordiality, immediately calling him by his name although he had never seen him before.⁶ Thomas also told his audience that God later revealed Ruusbroec's death to Groote. He saw his soul rising up to heaven after an hour's purification, as he made known to his friends in Deventer by tolling the bells. By quoting a passage from one of Groote's letters Thomas revealed that love for Ruusbroec increased after this. He omits to mention that Groote entertained certain reservations concerning two of Ruusbroec's works.

Then follows a chapter on Groote's austerity in eating and sobriety

1 Pohl VII, 40.

2 Ibid., 44-45.

3 Ibid., 46.

4 Ibid., 49.

5 Ibid., 50.

6 Ibid., 53.

[p. 186]

in dress which seems to me to be entirely calculated for his audience. He was accustomed to eat once a day; to take seven hours sleep, not to eat away from the house, to invite the poor to his table and sometimes one or two lonely burghers whom he refreshed ‘by the sweetness of the heavenly tongue’; to read aloud at table with no laughing or joking. His conversation was ‘pithy.’ He kept his books in the dining room so that he could consult them. Patiently he ate unsalted or burnt food (for he cooked himself and was not very good at it). He only suffered the Sisters to serve him by buying things for him in the market. He did not permit them to enter his room and was content with the comfort of a cleric. He spoke to the Sisters only through a closed and curtained window and if they had anything to give him they passed it through a revolving hatch. His pupils considered this altogether too severe, but he said: ‘If I could shut my ears so as not to hear their voices I would do so.’ He used no milk or butter on Fridays and took salt instead of oil (he let the cats and mice lick the plates clean). On Thursdays he thoroughly scrubbed all pots and pans to remove all traces of fat.¹ Groote wore grey, hard, old and worn-out clothes and a patched cloak like the beggars; a scandal for the rich but an example for the devout and a holy memory for those who came after. He also wore worn-out underclothes ‘to keep out the cold,’ he answered jokingly when someone passed a remark. Thomas can tell that one garment was ten and another twelve years old and that there were a hundred holes in a worn out cap! Groote did all this in penance for wearing luxurious clothing in his former life.²

The chapter on devotion in prayer and the hearing of Mass also served to set up Groote as an example to the novices. Sometimes he cried his joy aloud on reading his breviary. When he prayed softly his spirit aspired more ardently to God. He found more pleasure in devout prayers than formerly in eating and song. On a journey with Brinckerinck they sometimes prayed the breviary together. Once he asked Brinckerinck if he understood what he prayed. When he answered no, Groote said: ‘A multiple and mystic meaning comes before my mind, I pass from one to the other, and I never weary of reading the hours.’ When on a journey each said his own prayers at night in the inn, but they never neglected to recall to each other the faults of the day.³ His prayer once drove the enemy from Deventer. Every morning, before beginning his worrying activities, he comforted his spirit by

1 Pohl VII, 53-54.

2 Ibid., 59-60.

3 Ibid., 61-62.

[p. 187]

spiritual reading, meditation and prayers. He heard Holy Mass daily with great reverence and fitting devotion.¹ When he entered a church he did not stand looking at the excellent glass windows, but knelt before God and prayed. He did not speak there but wished only to listen to the praise of God, or to pray his breviary. Thomas also tells of the secluded place which he had in the church of the Franciscans, but so situated that he could see the Holy Sacrament at various places (probably during different Masses). Then follows a vague reference to the prophecies which Rudolf Dier also mentions.² When he once spoke to a disciple of his longing for heaven, the latter answered that they could not do without him yet. To this Groote replied: ‘I could ask God to help you and to complete the work which is begun.’

The account of his zeal in the reading of holy books and his love of books in general is linked to an example of his humility. He gladly learned from younger and less educated people. He did not desire beautiful books. His breviary was worn. The content of the books was more important than their appearance. Thomas hastens, however, to add that it is none the less fitting that the Bible and the liturgical books should be beautiful.³ Not only did he read books, he also wrote some, compiled from the authentic sayings of saints and at the request of others. He also wrote important letters.⁴ The description of his scholarship is accompanied by a reference to his obedience to the prelates and to his humility. However, he always had books to hand to make use of them against his opponents. He also had his collected letters with him and he successfully used them to score off one of his opponents - who, for the rest, was suffering from jealousy.⁵ Thomas concludes this study by defending Groote against those who claimed that he was practised in astrology and black magic. Before his conversion he had indeed studied many wonderful things in the magic arts. But Thomas had questioned two of his pupils and come to the conclusion that he could not be reproached with anything on this point. One of them had heard Groote himself say: ‘I indeed gained knowledge of that art and read the books and possessed them. But I never practised magic wantonness.’ Another pupil, a priest, was better able to inform Thomas: ‘You must distinguish between natural magic, which is extremely subtle and is scarcely distinguished by some from the second, that is, devilish. Master Geert was familiar with the

1 Pohl VII, 62.

2 Ibid., 63.

3 Ibid., 66.

4 Ibid., 66.

5 Ibid., 68.

[p. 188]

natural magic, but in my opinion, never learned the other. He did not make a pact with the devil. Be that as it may, if he did anything wrong, he has done penance for it.’ Then follows a piece of information which seems to have been adopted from Rudolf Dier. At least it corresponds to what he has to say about the story of the conversion: ‘As a sign of repentance Groote, when attacked by an illness, renounced all unlawful practices before a priest and had these codices of vanity burnt.’ Thomas evidently regarded this question of magic as a difficult point. He now draws the conclusion on behalf of his hearers or readers. ‘Let us recognize in all this the immeasurable treasure of divine love. The Almighty God allows some to exist in great sin and in protracted error, then secretly, with clear and all-embracing compassion, arouses the abandoned one to repentance, by not only granting forgiveness for past sins, but by giving an abundance of grace to the converted and to those who strive after good’ etc.¹

Under the title De multiplici fructu eius in conversione hominum Thomas gives a description in general terms of the fruits of Groote's work. One concrete detail he mentions: He was not only a preacher but also a pious doctor of the sick.² He despised that which was of the world and was conscious of his own weakness. These are the two properties of the already old monastic ideas of the contemptus mundi.³ Thomas also mentions Groote's learning and his action against the heretics, simoniaci, usurarii, proprietarii, focaristae. Groote loved God so much that he did not forget his neighbour. He was not only troubled for his own salvation but also worked for others.⁴ This linking of the monastic and pastoral life is followed by a comprehensive description from which his hearers could take profit.

The chapter on the pious congregations and monasteries which owe their existence to Groote deals with the origin of the congregations of the Brethren of the Common Life and the monasteries of Windesheim and St. Agnietenberg. Here he takes the opportunity to point out that Groote won over his hearers to the contemptus mundi not in words of human wisdom but more by the example of his holy life. He then describes how the people flocked to his sermons and how he sometimes preached for more than three hours and sometimes several times

1 Pohl VII, 68-70.

2 Ibid., 71.

3 R. Bultot, La doctrine du mépris du monde, Leuven-Parijs 1963-64.

4 Pohl VII, 73.

[p. 189]

a day. He names the places where this is said to have happened (in Amsterdam for one, where he gave his first sermon in the vernacular. How would the crowds have understood him otherwise?) He says that after Groote's death monasteries of the Regulars and houses of the Devotionalists arose in various regions of the Netherlands and in Westphalia and Saxony. It was Groote who proposed that his disciples should live together. In particular he desired the foundation of the Monastery in Windesheim (and St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle).¹

The report of his agony and death is remarkable, firstly on account of the prediction that he would die soon, secondly for the Brothers' complaint that his passing left them without their defender (it seems doubtful to me, however, whether the congregation of the Brethren of the Common Life which was then not long in existence, and the Sisters who had not yet embarked on a communal life, would have already had so many enemies at Groote's death); thirdly for the fact that on his deathbed he appointed Florens Radewyns as father and rector of the Brethren; fourthly that he left only books and a few old things of no value, in signum contemptus mundi - displaying once again his contempt for the world; fifthly that schoolboys came to his deathbed who, having heard the good word from Groote, returned to their hostels and later practised mortification.

Thomas ends his Vita by explaining the purpose for which he wrote it. His story of Groote's life must serve for the edification (aedificatio) of the present and later Brethren of our congregation (i.e. the chapter of Windesheim), and for the praise of our Lord Jesus Christ. In any case he had made this clear enough. In all his activities - and notably in his sermons - Groote had really been for Thomas a monk who had affected contempt for the world, as it was understood by the monastics of those days. The facts of Groote's life as described by him make this sufficiently clear. One may perhaps dwell upon a few small points, such as the somewhat vague account of the origin or at least the communal life of the Brethren - which must be discussed later - or his fear of the women who lived in his house and whom he wished neither to see nor hear; an old theme of the contemptus mundi. But how could such a person preach for so many men and women; how could he travel and stop in inns; how could he preach in convents and care so well for Elsbe de Gherne, for Aleidis Dreyer, whom Cele had to keep in his house² and for Fenelle and Beatrice?³ Thomas a

1 Pohl VII, 77-78.

2 Ger. M. Ep., p. 140.

3 Ibid., p. 255.

[p. 190]

Kempis made Groote into a withdrawn, world-shy, scrupulous (cleaning the pans for Friday) ascetic, despite the mention of his learning and his preaching. He does not bring out sufficiently the active, many-sided, extremely erudite and vigorous personality of Groote, who was unafraid and fought against all he considered unsound. A man who entertained rigoristic ideas on various points, and gladly gave his help to many, employing his extensive legal knowledge, who dared to speak his mind, even against the monks of Groenendaal, on the subject of their Master's work, for example.

Thomas drew a picture of Groote as he ought to be for the Windesheim monastics or novices and projected his ideals into Groote's life.

Did Peter Horn do the same?

Peter Horn was a Brother of the Common Life from the Deventer House. Born in Hoorn in 1424 he attended the school in that city and the highest class of the school in Deventer. Having finished school he entered the Fraternity of Deventer in 1442 as a young man and died there in 1479.¹ He had obtained a good grounding in Latin at school and a fair amount of philosophy so that, having gained a certain degree of experience and maturity he was able to write a Vita of Groote with some independence. He belonged, however, to the third generation. None of his fellow Brethren had known Groote. He was thus thrown back upon the written sources, principally the existing Vitae of R. Dier and Thomas a Kempis, and also certain letters and a dissertation by Groote's friend Salvarvilla. Since his Vita Magister Gerardi Magni is not directly linked with Groote it cannot really be considered as a source, but rather as literature. It is indeed the work of a man who knew the religious atmosphere of the life which Groote had created. For the rest, he is thrown back upon the same sources as we, but we have the advantage of being able to compare various data, since the printed sources are much easier to consult. We also know more than Peter Horn about the universities and the studies there. He does not thus, contribute much to our knowledge except perhaps in what he tells us of a pair of heretics of whom nothing is said elsewhere so that we are virtually dependent on Horn's information. In his account of the facts of Groote's life he diverges little from his predecessors.

There are nevertheless certain small departures which must be mentioned here. For we are chiefly concerned with the question:

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, Vita Petri Horni, geschreven door Albert Lübeck 148-162, pp. 148, 161.

[p. 191]

What did he make of Groote? How did he see him? Did he view him independently? It is my opinion that he did, although he admittedly transcribed certain passages from Thomas word for word. Sometimes he elaborates on Thomas and sometimes he deliberately omits certain details, thus showing his independence of mind. The accounts of Groote's family and study in Paris are less concrete in Thomas, but Groote's student period is painted much blacker since Horn applies to Groote the parable of the prodigal son.¹ The conversion is thus naturally all the more important. It is indeed already long predicted by three prophecies (in Aachen, Cologne and Prague).² The first two differ in detail from Thomas's account while the last is not mentioned in his Vita. It is moreover the only report of Groote having studied in Prague, which in itself does not inspire confidence. Since however, there seemed to be a certain preference for Prague among the Devotionalists and other Netherlanders, the question of the relationship Prague - Devotio Moderna is here further discussed ex professo (see p.223). Following Thomas's example Horn also gives a long and somewhat different reflexion on the meaning of the names Gerard and Groote, and also on the meaning of the number 200, since 200 pounds is mentioned as the annual income of the student in Paris! The significant man in Groote's conversion was not Henry Eger of Calcar as with Thomas, but John of Arnhem, although Horn admits that others name Henry Eger. This may already reflect an attempt to limit in some way Groote's monastic spirit. The conversion itself and the stay in Monnikhuizen are told in Thomas's own words. The accoun is very brief. Then begins the preaching, on which Horn is much more detailed than Thomas. Groote is a second Paul, a vas electionis.³ The devil works against him, and two examples of this are given. Groote, moreover, works important miracles, such as cures, which are mentioned only here.⁴ He considers that it would take too long to mention Groote's efforts and all the conflicts he occasioned, in fact he names only the question of the focarists and the heretics, one of whom worked in Gouda and two in Kampen.⁵ Groote's sermon against the focarists and the subsequent controversy are mentioned in particular.⁶

1 Ed. W.J. Kühler, Nederl. Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis, Nieuw Serie 6. (1909) 325-370; 333.

2 Ibid., 334.

3 Ibid., 341.

4 Ibid., 342.

5 Ibid., 344.

6 Ibid., 345-346.

[p. 192]

Groote travels through the land and writes many letters. Horn renders the general interest in Thomas's words,¹ without saying that Groote gave the first sermon in Dutch in Amsterdam.² Various people opposed him: some prelates, priests and the wandering monks (circumvagantes). Like Thomas, Horn defends the prelates against the public, using Thomas's words. He also tells that the schoolboys wrote for Groote and that Groote paid their salaries in instalments and sought and maintained continual contact with them.³ After being forbidden to preach Groote translated the hours from Latin into Dutch. This fact is also mentioned by Rudolf Dier, but Horn can list more: the hours of Our Lady, of the Holy Ghost, of the Holy Cross, the seven penitential psalms and the vigils. Horn remarks that this greatly increased the devotion of the laity, so that this translation must have been done on their behalf and not for the Sisters.⁴ The story of Groote's visit to Ruusbroec with his friend Cele and another companion named Gerard is told almost entirely in words taken from Thomas.

The subsequent description of Groote's mortification, his treading of the narrow path, also comprises a flight from the world in word and deed, in food and clothing, with the intention of not allowing himself to be contaminated by the world. This seems to be the contemptus mundi but Horn postulates that Groote did all this absque votis, without vows.⁵ Horn retains the story of Groote's austeritas in eating and describes it chiefly in the words of Thomas a Kempis.

This also holds good for his relationship with women and his abstention from milk and butter on Friday. He omits, however, the scrupulous washing of pans in order to remove all traces of fat.⁶ Horn curtails the passage on the wearing of worn and mended clothes, but without changing the essential details.⁷ He deals in the same manner as Thomas with Groote's love of reading, especially of the Scriptures, his desire for books and his copying of them. On the other hand he deals briefly with Groote's knowledge of astronomy; there is no mention of astrology or black magic and he refers to Groote's eventual revulsion and his experience in these matters by advancing the larger part of a letter by Groote to Rudolf of Enteren.⁸ Groote's devotion too is described in practically the same words as in Thomas. Horn adds, however, that in his secluded place in the Franciscan church in

1 Horn, 347.

2 Ibid., 348.

3 Ibid., 349.

4 Ibid., 349.

5 Ibid., 351.

6 Ibid., 354.

7 Ibid., 354.

8 Ibid., 356-357.

[p. 193]

Deventer Groote often communicated spiritually, since he dared not receive the Holy Sacrament frequently.¹ Groote's prophecies are then recalled. They concern a certain John, Florens Radewyns, John of Heusden and Henry of Höxter: all came to pass.² Horn again employs Thomas's words when referring to the disciples and followers. According to him Groote indeed urged his disciples to meet together now and then in one house in order to encourage each other and to speak of God and love, but the disciples only adopted the communal life after Groote's death, on the advice and encouragement of their master.³ According to Horn Groote went a step further: after the words quoted above stands: ‘and if some wish to live in the same house (simul stare), let them earn their living by the work of their hands and let them maintain the communal life as much as possible according to the law of the Church.’ He did not allow anyone to beg.⁴ Horn again recounts the foundation of the monastery of Windesheim in Thomas's words, but does not mention St. Agnietenberg.⁵ The same holds good for his description of Groote's death-bed, but there is one small difference. Thomas says that the codices and poor clothes and effects were willed to the Brethren in signum contemptus mundi;⁶ Horn does not mention the clothes and other things, but only the books, and these naturally do not serve for contempt of the world. The Brothers were to use them and lend them out to reliable people. Thus, by lending out his books Groote continued to work after his death for the conversion of men just as he had done during his lifetime.⁷

Horn adds certain particulars to Thomas's story of Groote's death. He says that after he had passed away a great light was seen above Deventer, indicating the mysterium magnum. For from Deventer a great light illuminated the whole diocese of Utrecht, even almost the whole of West Germany. The piece ends with the story of the preacher of Zutphen who expressed his joy at Groote's death and was immediately felled by a stroke. We read this in the Vita of Rudolf Dier. There are

1 With reference to this passage Horn twice refers to the Conclusiones which from the point of view of method is not completely accurate. The fact that a good resolution is made does not necessarily mean that it is carried out.

2 Horn, 360-362.

3 Ibid., p. 362.

4 Pohl VII, 77.

5 Horn, 363.

6 Pohl VII 81.

7 Horn, p. 365.

[p. 194]

a few additional details, including some on Groote's preaching, but these are discussed elsewhere.

As a Brother of the Common Life Horn, more than Thomas a Kempis, sees in Groote the pastor, the preacher, the combatter of heretics, whose every effort was directed towards the conversion of his contemporaries. He is much less the monastic and the despiser of the world. He did not succeed in detaching himself completely from his source, but the light which emanated from Groote was not that of the monastic, but of the preacher striving to improve the spiritual life.

Two other Vitae exist which some reckon among the sources. One of these is in middle Dutch, the first of a series of biographies of famous men of the Deventer circle, preserved in the house of the Sisters of the Common Life in Deventer, in the so-called Master Geert's house.¹ It was probably written around 1480-1490, thus a hundred years after Geert Groote's death. Even had it been written a decade earlier, this Vita is less important for our knowledge of Groote himself than for information on how he was viewed in later times or at least held up as example to the then Sisters of the Master Geert's house. Something similar can also be said of the Vita between 1502-1520, written by the famous Parisian printer of the Humanist period, José Bade (1462-1525), better known as Badius Ascensius, who was educated by the Brethren in Ghent and wrote of Groote what he had learned from the Brethren. It shows to what extent Groote's image had changed in the Humanistic period². Details from the two Vitae need not be discussed here. For the history of Geert Groote they have little significance.

The chroniclers too, like Thomas a Kempis (for the monastery on the St. Agnietenberg near Zwolle),³ J. Busch (for the monastery at Windesheim).⁴ Jacob de Voecht (for the house of the Brethren at Zwolle),⁵ and William Vornken (1373-1455) (for the monastery at Windesheim),⁶ mention certain particulars concerning Geert Groote.

1 Ed. D.A. Brinkerink, Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 27 (1901) 400-434, 28 (1902) 1-37, 225-276; 29 (1903) 1-39.

2 Ed. H. Sommalius, Thomas Malleoli a Kempis opera omnia, Antwerpen 1607.

3 Ed. Pohl VII 333-366.

4 Liber de origine modernae devotionis, deel II van het Chronicon Windeshemense ed. K. Grube, Des Augustinerprobstes Johannes Busch Chronicon Windeshemense und Liber de reformatione monasteriorum, Halle 1886, 353-35.

5 Ed. M. Schoengen, Werken H.G. Derde serie, no. 13, 1908. 1-3.

6 Epistula de prima institutione monasterii in Windesem, ed. J.G.R. Acquoy, Het klooster te Windesheim en zijn invloed, III Utrecht 1880, 235-259.

[p. 195]

They refer mainly, however, to the foundation of the Brethren (or Sisters) of the Common Life and to the monastery at Windesheim, which will be fully dealt with in the following chapters.

The remarkable thing is how all these pious writers, from Thomas to Badius, are inclined to depict the period before Groote in the Netherlands in the darkest colours. Everything was wrong and decayed, but Groote came and set all to rights! One is put in mind of the Pharisee: ‘I fast every day and the others are worthless.’ This attitude does not correspond with what Groote wrote to the Abbot of Altenkamp: ‘in order to ascribe this (the despoiling of monasteries of possessions and incomes) to the proprietarii and the evil done by them and not to the wickedness of the times and the age of the world, one should regard the monastery of the Carthusians and other orders such as the Cistercians and the Norbertines, the Canons Regular, who have no proprietarii and who flourish. See how they are loved in these times and dowried and defended against the wicked and against the princes of the earth.’¹

All are convinced that the world has grown old. Yet nevertheless new life was emerging too. Thomas a Kempis says in his Life of Florens Radewyns that in that time, the beginning of the Brethren, there were several pious priests in the diocese of Utrecht.² He names a few who, however, were all involved in the activities of Geert Groote. But he found them as they were and did not train them. And yet he writes in the Vita Gerardi: ‘At that time, around 1370, the world was in a sorry state, so that there were but few who preached the word of God through word and work, and even fewer who practised continence, and what is most regrettable, the name of the holy practice of monachism and devotion faded and departed from the traces of former persons. Among the Carthusians the light of the heavenly life continued to shine, although it was hidden. This life seemed severe to the judging prophets, but it remained pleasing to God and was desired and acceptable among ardent spirits.’³ Werenbold, who had made various groups of Sisters of the Common Life into Franciscan Tertiaries and incorporated them in with the Utrecht chapter⁴ had already written or said in 1404: ‘Forty years ago I was already familiar with the situation in Overijssel, and at that time there

1 Ger. M. Ep. 166.

2 Pohl VII 186-188.

3 Pohl VII 37.

4 R. Dier, Ger. Dumbar, Analecta I 1719, 31, 32.

[p. 196]

was as much knowledge of God in Kampen, Deventer and Zwolle put together as there is now in one of you. Then there were but a few monasteries which lived according to the rule.’¹ William Vornken (1373-1455) who had been prior of two monasteries of the Congregation of Windesheim and afterwards of Windesheim itself, wrote in a letter to an unknown correspondent for example and edification: ‘But alas, so much had the old ardour and the keeping of the rule diminished or vanished altogether, that what remained of the spiritual life, except for the external element, was dissipated by the work of the devil.’ Jacob de Voecht² paints the blackest picture: ‘Before Groote began his activities not alone the laity and secular clergy had fallen off and became useless, but also every monastic order and monastic discipline had broken away from the original purity and degenerated into a lax life outside the rules.³ For in the entire diocese of Utrecht, Cologne and Munster and the surrounding district there was not one monastery or convent in which the discipline and regular observance remained in force. Yes, even in the whole of Germany there were few monasteries to be found living a good life, with the possible exception of the Carthusians who, all things being equal, persevered better in the good observance. How, and by whom these calamities were improved - with the help of the Lord - I shall now briefly explain.’ Thus begins de Voecht's chronicle of the house of Zwolle, with the couple of chapters on the life of Geert Groote.⁴ In all this, however we must bear in mind that in 1480, when de Voecht was writing, the regular observance had a quite specific meaning. For instance, so much emphasis was placed upon ‘good deeds’ that Luther, who had originally been a supporter, protested against it. Others too termed it Neo-Pelagianism.

1 Epistula de prima institutione, Acquoy III 237-238.

2 Ed. Schoengen 1-3.

3 The word dissolutus is difficult to translate; dissipated or dissolute is certainly incorrect. Towards the end of his life Groote repeatedly speaks of himself as dissolutus, meaning by this absent-minded, distracted from the inner devout life.

4 Ed. Schoengen.