Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

(1968)–R.R. Post–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

Chapter Three
The Disciples of Geert Groote

Continuation of his Work from ca. 1384 to ca. 1415/20
The Brethren of the Common Life of ca. 1384-1415/20

The premature and comparatively sudden death of Geert Groote greatly slowed down the normal and gradual development of the institutions which were to carry on his work or at least put his ideas into practice. Previously the foundations had been laid for the community which later received the name of the Sisters of the Common Life, for in 1374 Groote had given over his house and buildings as a dwelling for women on their own, either single or widowed. Groote had reserved for himself a few small rooms in the house where he lived completely apart, looking after his own needs.1

There is no evidence in the sources of any pastoral cure among these Sisters - but he will not have withheld his words of comfort from these more or less deserted persons. It is possible to trace the development to the Sisters of the Common Life after Groote's death, and we shall do so in Chapter V.

As we have already indicated it is not possible to determine precisely the time and manner of the origin of the Brethren of the Common Life, Groote's most beloved disciples. During Groote's lifetime a few groups of male disciples came together in Deventer, Zwolle and Kampen. Groote called them his socii2 and the house in Zwolle is known from chronicles and records (charters). But such relatively spontaneous communal groups are by no means houses of Brethren of the Common Life. They may have lacked any leadership, authority and community of possessions. Nothing more is heard of the Kampen groups after Groote's death.3

Two traditions exist on this question, one mentioned by John Busch and the other rather vaguely referred to by the Vitae.4 Ac-

cording to Busch the schoolboys who wrote for Groote, at Florens Radewijns' suggestion were to pool the weekly wage they earned from Groote to begin a communal life. Groote was surprised at the suggestion and exclaimed: ‘Communal, communal - but the mendicant monks will never stand for it!’ Florens reassured him and finally Groote agreed and promised to help them.1 Others see the beginning not in these schoolboys, but in Groote's pious followers, adult persons, laymen and clerics who felt impelled to go and live together in order thus to serve God better and to perform the pious exercises with more fruit. Florens Radewijns received these men into his house and finally Groote appointed Florens as rector, but only on his deathbed.2

Gerretsen, rightly to my mind, rejects Busch's proposal on various grounds, and chiefly on this account: the first Brethren of the Common Life were not schoolboys but adult persons, some of them priests and a few possessing academic degrees.

In Gerretsen's opinion the aim of this communal living was nothing other than the furtherance of devotion. The brothers were not impelled by any interest in education, learning or books. In addition Florens and not Gerard must be called the real founder. One might formulate thus the contrast between the two opinions. Busch assumes a spontaneous growth under Groote's influence which Florens Radewijns finally took over. The other opinion assumes an act by the leader in the beginning: one will which desired to found the Brotherhood and proceeded to do so when he acquired suitable members. In my view the line is too sharply drawn between Groote and Florens Radewijns. Even though Radewijns began by receiving people into his house, he will not have acted without consulting Groote. Groote after all called these first persons his socii. Groote had Florens ordained priest. He saw to it that John van de Gronde3 went to Deventer in order to help as spiritual father of the ‘spirituales.’ He himself could not undertake leadership in day to day matters since he was too often away on his travels. Even in the last months of his life he stayed for some time in Kampen, Utrecht and Woudrichem. The appointment of Florens as Groote's successor as described by Thomas a Kempis surely refers to his succession as rector of the house. Florens would be pater and

rector for the Brethren;1 in other words, whereas he had already been their leader in day to day matters and had virtually occupied the position of pater and rector, he would now continue in the same function but without Groote above him. It was probably Groote's intention to exclude rivals and so prevent discord.

One should not either consider the contrast between schoolboys and others to lie in the fact that the former were occupied with the practice of learning and the writing of books and the others not. Just as Florens himself possessed an academic title, so might others too have had one, or have esteemed learning of their own accord just as well as the schoolboys.2

Such a somewhat unregulated living together naturally demanded a certain amount of direction and division of tasks, for example preaching or work, writing or cooking, cleaning or praying. It presupposes moreover a communal purse to provide funds for paying the cost of the ordinary necessities of life. Florens, who had already placed his vicarage at their disposal, could not be expected to pay for food and drink as well. Everyone had to contribute his share, which meant a communal chest and presumed a system of bookkeeping. This did not yet, however, necessarily signify communal possession, or a resolution, not to speak of a vow, that the participants would remain in the community for ever.3

Before we consider who formed the first socii, the Brethren of Deventer, when they came together for the first time and what their aim was, it is useful to take a look at Zwolle, where, towards the end of Groote's life, the beginnings of a community of fraters also developed, without any particular regulation, but with Groote's entire approval.4

There was in the first place a priest and disciple of Groote, Henry Vopponis or Voppenszn, a native of Gouda who like Florens Radewijns in Deventer, received schoolboys into his house in Zwolle,

young people who attended the city school. He did this at a time when, according to Rudolf Dier, he was a member of the Brotherhood of Deventer.1

This Henry Voppenszn from Gouda had the chief merit of being the spiritual leader of various Sisters of the Common Life in Zwolle, but he was not a member of the Zwolle Fraternity. No more than those in Deventer were his schoolboys the first members of the Zwolle community of Groote's disciples. This honour goes to certain others: John Essekenzoon of Ommen, Wittecoep Thomaszoon (the son of a city magistrate) and Wickman Ruerinck, all laymen. These were joined by Nicolas Schoonacker and James Hermanus. Pooling the cost they built a house next to the Beguine house in Zwolle, near to that of Henry Voppenszn. They took up residence there in 1384 and led a communal life, so that one of the founders, the blind John Essekenzoon van Ommen was rector and procurator, assisted by his mother who, however, died shortly after. These 6 persons, five men and a woman, all lay people, also copied books as probably did the first inmates of Florens' vicarage in Deventer.2

Wickman Ruerinck and probably also James Hermanus were occupied in May and June of 1384, with the copying of Groote's Sermo contra focaristas.3 They lived in community and served God in all simplicity and humility. They despised the world and did not imitate Groote in the apostolate which would in any case have been difficult for lay people at that time.

They considered the house in the town to be still too little outside the world, and when at the beginning of Lent 1384, Groote came to preach in Zwolle, one of the inmates spoke to him and told him that they could not bear the concourse of people and that they preferred a more solitary life. Groote understood their desire and the next day accompanied Wickman, Reinier (not mentioned in the narratio), Henry (Voppenzn) James and Wittecoep to the Nemelerberg (later the St. Agnietenberg) where they sought a suitable place for a monastery. When they had found it they began to build and this was the beginning of the monastery near the St. Agnietenberg, the monastery of Thomas a Kempis.4

For the time being they continued to live in the newly built house,

but already on June 5th 1384 they transferred this house (in the Beguinestraat) to Geert Groote.1 He in turn, on June 13th 1384, turned it into a joint property, in the names of himself, Florens Radewijns and John van de Gronde, in order to avoid the ban on the increase of property held in mortmain.2

On July 25th 1384 they granted the house until further notice to the community on the Nemelerberg, represented by the three former owners, John Essekenzoon, Wittecoep Maassoen (Thomaszoon) and Wickmann Ruerinck. They were also allowed to accept new members.3 The move from Zwolle to the Nemelerberg might be called the first case of a transition from a Brotherhouse, now still in embryo, to a monastery. It was another ten years before a more regular group of Brothers of the Common Life was formed in the house in the city. It probably stood empty for some time.

All this is very instructive for what was happening in Deventer during Groote's life-time. Groote viewed such settlements with favour but was not entirely clear on what should happen next. The house in Deventer, however, begun thus spontaneously and without any particular form, held out. Who were the first inmates of Florens' vicarage?

The house in Deventer began, writes Rudolf Dier, because Florens Radewijns gathered together in his vicarage young men of good will, iuvenes bonae voluntatis. These included John Brinckerinck, John of Kempen, John Vos of Heusden and a few others.4 It is not possible to establish with certainty who these others were. J.H. Gerritsen mentions John van de Gronde, Henry of Gouda, Hubert ten Busch,5 persons who certainly belonged to the first fraters, although it is not possible to prove that they were among the very first.

John van de Gronde certainly worked in Amsterdam up to 1384. But the fact that he had long been Groote's friend, kindred spirit and helper does not mean that he was admitted to the Fraternity, no more than so many other priests who guided the devout in various cities. The important thing is to establish when this beginning must be postulated. Acquoy, Gerretsen and van der Wansem suggest 1380 or

1381 as the foundation year.1 It can only have taken place however, when Florens was able to dispose of the vicarage in Deventer. In other words, after the exchange of his office of canon with prebend in the church of St. Peter in Utrecht, for the vicarship of St. Paul in St. Lebuin's in Deventer. Unfortunately no document of this exchange contract has been preserved, nor do we possess evidence of the relinquishing of the first and appointment to the second, although written evidence must have existed. In my opinion this exchange is connected with Florens' ordination to the priesthood. As canon of St. Peter's he did not need to be a priest, but he did as vicar of St. Paul's.2

Now it has in my view been rightly assumed, on the basis of the information given in the old Vitae of Gerard Groote, that in his letter of recommendation (of 1383) in favour of his socius, to have him ordained priest by the bishop of Worms, Groote was referring to Florens Radewijns.3 This means that the ordination only took place in 1383 and that Florens will only have been allocated the vicarage after this.

The foundation of the ‘congregation’ will hardly have taken place immediately, and thus we come to the last year of Groote's life. This immediately explains why so little is to be found in his life about the existence of the ‘Brethren of the Common Life.’4 After Geert Groote's

death Florens Radewijns became the founder of the house. According to Rudolf Dier he was the head of the Devotionalists, both in Deventer and outside the city.1 Energetically he set about expanding the Fraternity.

The first house, the vicarage of Florens Radewijns and naturally of no great size, still offered room for a few fraters and a couple of schoolboys. It appears that, like Henry Voppenszn in Zwolle, Florens Radewijns also received a number of schoolgoers into his house. Indeed, from the very beginning, he and his confraters displayed a particular interest in the pupils of the city school, and immediately devoted great care to them. Presently we shall examine more closely of what this care consisted.

Since lodgings for these young people were in great demand and it was undesirable that they should live with the brothers, in 1391 the brethren moved out of the vicarage to a roomier building in the Pontsteeg. The vicar's house in the Engelstraat was then furnished exclusively for the young scholars and was then, according to Thomas

a Kempis, capable of accommodating about twenty boys.1 Perhaps because this again had grown to small and also probably because Florens Radewijns realized that the brethren would lose the right to dispose of their title to the vicarage at his death of shortly afterwards, he began to build a new house for schoolboys in the Kromme Steeg, henceforth known in the sources as Domus Nova, Nijehuis, Domus Pauperum, poor clerks' house, This last was after Olger van Hoorn who governed it for some time.2 It was built by a consortium of gentlemen and had originally a somewhat broader destination, but finally fell to the fraters.

When, two years after Florens' death in 1402, the Brethren lost the vicarage, they retained two considerable foundations in Deventer - the Master Florens' house for the Brothers in the Pontsteeg and the new house (or however it was known) for the schoolboys in the Kromme Steeg.3 The Brothers were able to adapt the house in the Pontsteeg to their vows and it was renewed in 1441 and 1487 in two phases.4

In the exchange contract of 1396 concerning the houses, between the fraters and Mrs. Zwedera, she stipulated a condition important for our knowledge of the congregation. Always there would have to live in the Floren's house four or more priests with eight or more clerici and a few servants (familiares).5 This regulation, which after all originated in the brain of the Brothers' leaders, and notably of Florens Radewijns and Jan Brinckerinck, characterizes the situation of the fraters.

It is clear that the Fraternity, or for the time being only the Florens' House in Deventer, had a clerical character. The few lay people, the familiares, remain in the background. We do indeed discover them later as cook, tailor, shoemaker and in charge of the cleaning and similar humble tasks among the fraters and the schoolboys, but their voice was certainly not always heard at the election of a new rector or in the taking of other weighty decisions. This applies not only to

Deventer but also to Zwolle and every place for which we have relatively detailed information. They were considered as pious workers. Their piety, which revealed itself in industry, obedience and humility, was repeatedly praised. Certain wonderfully magnanimous souls, like John Kessel, originally from Duisburg, a merchant in Dordrecht and later in Bruges,1 and a well educated man who also left pious exercitia, or Henry of Gorcum, became cooks.2 Both had previously made over their money, which seems to have been not inconsiderable, to the Brethren.

The priests were the leaders, since the rector was always and the procurator usually a priest. At least others thus had to be ordained as well. This regulation was kept and served as a model for other houses. When for example the priests Gerard Zerbold and Lubbert ten Bosch (or Busch of Zwolle) died in 1398, rector Florens took immediate measures and had Amilius of Asch or Buren and Willem Clinckert from Schoonhoven3 ordained priests. Besides these four priests there also belonged to the house the spiritual director of the sisters of the Master Geert's house (and later of Diepenveen) John Brinckerinck, and those of various sister houses in Zwolle, for example, John of Haarlem, successor to Henry Voppenszn who had already replaced the sick rector in Deventer, Amilius, for six years.4 In addition the head of the schoolboys' house often became a priest and on the occasion of a new foundation the leader of the group being sent out received ordination.

Thus it came about that most of the clerici, usually young people who had entered after completing their studies at the city school, attained the priesthood.

Since not much is known of particular individuals in Deventer, the history of each is not as clear as for example in Zwolle. However, this necessary custom which arose more or less out of the situation, is revealed in a statement like that of Henry of Wesel, procurator of the Florens' House: he gloried in the fact that he had not become a priest5... which was usually a condition of the procuratorship. But Henry died young of consumption.

It is noted as a peculiarity of Arnold of Schoonhoven, who was 31

years a brother, that he remained in the state of clericus, never aspiring to the priesthood.1 Both, naturally, not from any objection to the priesthood, but out of humility.

Of the 25 members of the Fraternity whom we have learned to know from the first 30 years, 16 were ordained priest. Naturally enough, the priests, as leading personalities, were mentioned more frequently in charters and chronicles than the clerici. But how many of these died young, before they had the chance to become priests! In the long run, and given more complete data, the impression that most of them attained the priesthood is strengthened. From the very beginning thus the same custom obtained in Deventer as among the Norbertines, Dominicans and Franciscans. The candidate entered as a young man and after some years of study and preparation, received the priestly ordination in the normal course of events. The clerics of the Fraternity might thus be called future priests, priests in training or student priests, with, however, certain reservations. The name student, as we shall shortly see, would lay too much emphasis upon study.

In order to prevent the threatened destruction of the Brotherhouse during an epidemic of the plague in 1398, a section of the inmates fled from Deventer. One group went to Amersfoort, while some remained in Deventer. Those who went to Amersfoort and remained there for some time wrote eight letters to their colleagues in Deventer, mentioning the names of those they wished to greet.2 Although everything is not entirely clear, the following may be stated with certainty.

Two priests, Florens and Gerard Zerbold, went to Amersfoort accompanied by the clerics William of Schoonhoven, James of Schoonhoven, John of Haarlem and Reinier of Haarlem. There were thus six persons in all. The other two priests Lubbert ten Bosch and Henry de Bruyn remained in Deventer together with six clerics, Amilius of Asch (or Buren), Mathias of Mechelen, John (of Deventer?), James of Dordrecht, Tydeman Grauwerk and William of Vianen.3

Amilius of Asch or Buren, who later became rector, seemingly occurs here under the name of Amilius Steenfordie.4 Otherwise there would have to be two Amilii, since Amilius Asch was certainly in Deventer and assumed direction there after the death of Lubbert ten

Bosch. He is twice mentioned without the indication Steenfordie.1

The cook, John Kessel, also remained in Deventer, but immediately fell victim to the dreaded sickness. Besides these there were eight other persons in Deventer, which made a complement of fourteen persons, four priests and ten clerics. John Brinckerinck went to Arnhem, but he is not counted in the documents of 1396. We must assume that fourteen was then the full strength, which may be taken as normal.

The school of Deventer, whose fame was widespread throughout the Netherlands, Westphalia and the Rhineland, offered a valuable source of recruitment to the Brothers.

By reason of their activities among the scholars, which we have already touched upon, the Brethren came into contact with many boys and this frequently led to vocations, not only for the Brethren but also for the monastic orders. Several of the pupils of the city or chapter schools were perhaps already inclined to such a choice. Gerard Zerbold,2 Amilius of Buren,3 Arnold of Schoonhoven,4 Reinier of Haarlem,5 Henry Kixshof,6 Stephen of Liège,7 and Henry of Wesel,8 all had been pupils of the school of Deventer, as Godfried of Meurs (rector from 1410-1450) had been a teacher there.9

The chapter school of this city was already of a high standard when the Brotherhood was founded.10 Neither Geert Groote nor Florens Radewijns nor any of the Brethren of the first period contributed anything to the growth of the school. It was superior to the existing Latin schools in other cities, since it counted not only the six usual classes, from the octava up to and including the tertia, but also the two top classes, secunda and prima. In this it resembled the Zwolle

school under Cele and later. The subjects taught in these two highest classes also exceeded the normal subject matter of the city schools, namely Latin and dialectic.

The teaching matter in the highest class was fairly similar to what was taught in the Arts Faculty of the Universities, that is, chiefly philosophy. Those who had successfully passed through the two highest classes could, after a certain amount of orientation, enroll at the University for the Baccalaureat in the Arts. Hence the desire of prominent pupils and often schoolboys from other cities, to complete the second and first class. They desired to be secundarii or primarii, as was said of Amilius of Buren and later of Peter Horn.1

The majority of the pupils did not go further than the fourth or third class. A large number of pupils left the school from the fourth or third class in order to enter trade or business, or to enter a monastery, or to prepare themselves somewhere else for the spiritual state.2

The monasteries of the mendicant orders were well fitted to receive such young persons, for they had their courses in philosophy and theology, usually conducted by professors who possessed University degrees in these subjects. This was not so well arranged for the old orders which admitted a few novices each year, except perhaps by the Norbertines, who later had to send their men to take up parish duties.

Did opportunities exist among the Brethren of the Common Life for studying the higher branches of learning and notably theology?

The young men who entered the Brotherhood, on completing their studies in the city schools, will usually have attained the age of 16, 17 or 18. They had learned sufficient Latin and if they had completed all the classes in Deventer, as had Amilius of Asch (Buren) they also had some knowledge of philosophy. But this remained the full extent of their studies. The Brethren's day was entirely filled with prayer, meditation and copying. Besides, there was not one competent teacher. Neither Florens nor Lubbert ten Bosch had acquired any theology at the University. They had only followed the preliminary study, and Amilius had only done the half of that. In any case, neither of them taught. They were active enough, but they had no time for study or teaching. If it was decided to let anyone be ordained priest, he presented himself to the bishop of Utrecht whenever he administered the sacrament of the priesthood. This happened six times a year. They

had no scholarly preparation at all and their knowledge extended no further than what they had learned at the city schools or what they had acquired by independent study. In this they were admittedly no different from the great majority of secular priests,1 but the fact remains strange in connection with these Brothers who are often considered as pioneers of learning, educational reformers, and as preparing the way for Humanism. They became priests without any theological training at all. They evidently did not consider this in any way abnormal, but it is significant that they did not feel the need for more knowledge. They, who were continually copying books, remained ignorant. They did not know what was happening at the University and what theories came into conflict, and how this led to friction but also to new light. By this attitude they diverged entirely from their founder, Geert Groote, who although he may have considered the practice of learning as vanity, none the less availed himself of it and was continually adding to his knowledge by reading and study. The perpetual emphasis on the value of simplicity finally brought the Brethren close to silliness. The first of them still profited a little from the lessons of Geert Groote. One of the first Brothers from Deventer had at least some acquaintance with a university, but they knew no more of theology and church law than what they had picked up from self study and the practice of life. With Gerard Zerbolt this was quite an amount, but with the others nothing. It will have been for this reason that all the Brethren's scholarly work soon ground to a halt. They continued to write only in the field of biography. Here they had the same aim as in their collations and preaching, and they achieved important work in this field. There are few exceptions to this rule, and these had already acquired their knowledge or at least their interest, before joining the Brethren of the Common Life.

The Brethren never sent one of their members to the university. Gabriel Biel, who came later, lived in quite a different atmosphere from the Brothers we are discussing here. I shall leave this matter for the present, but in the course of this study the question will be posed: What signs of study can be discerned among the brethren, what task did they fulfil in education and in the training of young people. This last especially is not unimportant and must be mentioned in detail and the proper significance attributed to it.

Naturally I do not mean to imply by all this that the various persons who were suddenly sent to receive the priestly ordination were unworthy. Far from it. These young men, for the most part isolated from the world, zealous, humble, obedient and sober, were models of virtue, outshining the secular and probably also most of the regular clergy.

The examination to determine virtue and ordination-title will have been quickly complied with, and these Brothers, who at least lived permanently in a religious atmosphere, will have been easily able to cope with the simple test.

Recruitment was entirely satisfactory in Deventer and might perhaps have led to over-population, had not many of them died much too young of exhaustion and consumption and the eternal curse of the Middle Ages, the plague, which, as we have already seen, raged in Deventer in 1384 and again in 1398.

Amilius of Buren, James of Vianen, Reinier of Haarlem, Stephen of Liège and Henry of Waal fell sick around 1400 or died of consumption.

On the advice of Werembold from Utrecht, the Brothers moderated their fasting at the beginning of the 15th century, shortened the work period before the midday meal, and returned to wearing linen underclothing.1

 

This loss was purely negative, at least from the historical point of view: a more positive character was offered by the losses occasioned as a result of the new foundations which were partially populated from Deventer. There was to begin with the important foundation of the monastery of Windesheim in 1387, for which the Brethren provided not only a large part of the material means (see Chapter VII), but also various members.

Of the first six inmates of Windesheim, however, only John of Kempen, the elder brother of Thomas who was later to become famous, came directly from the Fraternity of Deventer. But in 1387, only a year later, he was followed by John Vos of Heusden and Henry of Balveren, who were given the cowl on June 22nd 1388 and after the noviciate received as Canons Regular.2 The Brotherhouse provided further candidates, but these were no longer taken from the number of Brothers.

In Almelo the parish priest Everard founded an aspiring fraternity in his presbytery, which he persuaded some priests and clerici to join. They had a communal table, read aloud during meals, practised certain acts of striking penitence, but all this seems to have perished with pastor Everard.

Everard, priest and at the same time practising physician, even among the brethren at Deventer, was a remarkable man, who also had a hand in the founding of the monastery of the Canons Regular at Marienbosch, near Northorn, and in the reformation of the Regular monastery near Neuss.

In his parish he founded a house of Sisters of the Common Life, but all these activities did not deprive the house at Deventer of even one man. Only a certain Henry, from the city on the I Jssel, who might otherwise have ended up in the Brotherhouse of his native city, placed himself under pastor Everard's direction and later entered the abovementioned monastery at Northorn. He considered the tower, however, a luxury.1

A small fraternity in Amersfoort started as a direct branch of Deventer. In 1397, four citizens of Amersfoort requested Florens to found a house in their city and Florens sent three clerics to make a beginning. These were John of Lemego, Andreas of Attendoorn and Nicolas of Erpel. The first two were ordained priest in the same year, but Andreas died in 1397. His successor was Nicolas of Erpel.2 These were the devoti presbyteri, who in 1398 received into their house Florens Radewijns and three or four Brothers who were fleeing before the plague, and placed two bedchambers at their disposal.3 After Florens' departure for Deventer the house in Amersfoort showed little growth. William Hendrikx Clinkart soon assumed direction, but in 1399 he and certain of his confraters went over to the Tertiaries and he became co-founder of the Tertiary Chapter of Utrecht. John of Lemego did not follow this transition. Both groups continued for a few years to live in the same small house behind the hospital of St. Peter's, but in 1405 the Tertiaries departed for St. Andrieskamp. Both William Hendrikx Clinkart and John of Lemego possessed a vicarship in the Church of St. George and carried out pastoral duties among the Sisters.

Although the position regarding living space improved in 1403 and subsequently some persons out of the school of Amersfoort and also some willing laymen were accepted,1 the house did not really prosper under John of Lemego, perhaps because the rector had to devote a great deal of time to the sisters.2 It was thus that at Lemego's death in 1421 the rectors of Deventer, Zwolle and Hulsbergen came together and ordered the rector of Hulsbergen simply to appoint one of his fellow Brethren as rector of the house in Amersfoort, and to send him to Amersfoort.3 This very unusual course of action indicates a depopulation of the house.4 He sent Gerard of Hemert and the house revived somewhat.5 Dirk of Herxen, rector of Zwolle, also appointed the rector of the Jerome house in Hulsbergen in 1411, but this was a different case. The foundation through Zwolle had not been long in existence.6 In 1444 the fraters of Amersfoort were better housed near a ‘St. Jansappel op den camp,’ and hence they are here called ‘St. John's Brothers opten Camp.’7

Attention is once again drawn to the three categories of persons: priests, clerics and laity; to the recruiting from the pupils of the school and to the easy transition from cleric to priest. The undertaking cost the Fraternity in Deventer at least three members.

In the year 1401 rector Amilius, at the request of the magistrates of Delft, founded a congregation of Brethren in that city. He dispatched his procurator Leonard of Eecht and some other Brothers. The house was duly founded8 but at first did not seem to flourish. The second rector, Peter Gerrits, who had been head of the Delft foundation since 1412, adopted the third order of St. Francis together with the fraters and in 1418 exchanged this rather elastic rule for that of St. Augustine, without joining with Windesheim. Not all the fraters took this step. Those who objected continued for a time to share a house with the Regulars. There were not many of them and it was difficult to make up the numbers. When thus in 1435 the Regu-

lars departed for their own house, Brothers had to be sent from Zwolle to take their place.1

Not every attempt had immediate success, as appears from what happened at Liège and Hoorn. In 1397 a number of Brothers, under the direction of Rogier de Wyertthe, established themselves in Liège with the intention of taking over the direction in a House ‘des Bons-Enfants,’ which the prince-bishop had founded in the hospital of St. Elizabeth, close to the episcopal palace. We will leave aside for the moment the question of how far this can be called a Brotherhouse. The fact is, that in 1433 the Community went over to a Regular monastery and joined the congregation of Windesheim.2

An attempt was also made in Hoorn to establish a Brotherhouse. On July 11th, 1385, five persons, including the three known friends of Geert Groote, the priests Gijsbrecht Dou from Amsterdam, John van de Gronde from Deventer and Paul Albertz of Medenblik, together with the Hoorn priest John Volmersz and the layman Outgkes Michelz obtained a house in Hoorn in joint tenure. The house was to serve as an establishment for unmarried men who wished to serve God there in humility and repentance. This certainly refers to a Fraternity. The vagueness of the terms is a characteristic way of referring to an institution in process of development. The goal was not yet entirely clear. Certain priests did indeed take up residence there. On May 2nd 1392, seven years after its foundation, there appear to be three priests, one from Hoorn, one from Edam and one from Lochem. But little interest was shown further and in 1416 the house was empty. Accordingly, the ‘procurators,’ the members responsible for the house, which was held in joint tenure, assigned it to the monastery of St. Cecilia in Hoorn (1429).3

In the fruitful year of 1401 the ‘Modern Devotion’ also expanded in the direction of Germany. The way led not via Almelo and the monastery of Frenswegen, but through Münster, the capital of Westphalia, from whence various persons travelled to Deventer to meet the Devotionalists or to join them. Several sought to ease their

conscience by conversation or confession and others, for example Henry Mengedin of Ottenstein1 were received into the Florens' House. An anonymous priest was also admitted and a priest named Holto.2 There was also a noble married couple of whom the husband entered Windesheim and the wife Diepenveen. Jutta von Ahaus, too, became a Sister in the Master Geert's house and was among the first members of Diepenveen.3 A nephew of this Jutta, the bastard son of the house of Ahaus, Henry von Ahaus, who was born in 1369 and was already a priest, visited his aunt Jutta at the end of April 1400.

He will already have been aware of the existence and aims of the fraters of the Florens' house, but he allowed his aunt to persuade him to have a personal talk with the rector and the Brothers. They made such an impression on him that he asked to be admitted. His request was granted and he probably remained until August-September of 1401. He then returned to Münster and founded the house on the Hohenhauss in Münster. It flourished under his guidance, led to the creation of other foundations and finally, like Zwolle, became the centre of a group of houses in Westphalia, the Rhineland and even further afield. The beginning can be dated on October 26th, 1401, when Henry von Ahaus and two other priests (John of Stevern and Bernard of Holte) and a cleric appear to have acquired a house.4 Except that the aim of the house is described as in certain confirmations and charters, to be mentioned later, the legal content of the deed agrees with those of July 5th and July 13th 1384,5 in the sense that the Brothers converted the house into a joint property, so that it would remain in the hands of the Fraternity without becoming church property or increasing the goods held in mortmain. It was not hereditary but remained with the consortium of gentlemen who could appoint another member to replace anyone who dropped out. This is the method employed by Groote to leave his books to the Brothers of Deventer and to acquire houses.

A striking fact is that in the charter of the Münster house the books

and other already existing or future property were also taken into joint possession at the same time. We do not know how they acquired the house. It may have belonged to Henry von Ahaus, or to his family, or perhaps the four persons in question joined together to buy it.

The legal content of this charter is not only of importance in establishing the nature of the house, it also illustrates the difficulty of designating a head of the community, in other words of stating that Henry von Ahaus was rector of the new foundation.

The founders had only to establish how the joint property was to be administered; the four were to choose one or two from their group who would be in charge.1

Barnikol denies that Henry von Ahaus was rector from the very beginning. We know virtually nothing about it, since the next charter was only issued in the year 1422. Narrative reports, including that of the Frenswegen manuscript2 offer no solution. It does, however, seem likely that he was rector from the outset, whether an institution already existed when he came to Münster in 1401 or whether he himself gathered together the first pious brethren. In the few surviving reports he is always called rector and it would in any case have been difficult for him to found the house in Cologne, were he not rector of Münster as Barnikol assumes.3 Henry von Ahaus was certainly rector later and remained so until 1439. We shall return to him again in one of the following chapters.

Apart from the house in Münster, Westphalia received two other houses during the period under discussion, namely, Osterberg and Osnabrück. Both of them, however, had but a brief existence.

Henry von Ahaus collaborated in the founding of the house at Osterberg, between Osnabrück and Tecklenburg, on the property of the Count of Tecklenburg. According to a charter it was founded in 1410 and consisted from the beginning of two priests and some clerics. One of the priests certainly came from the Münster house. But the house could not flourish in this rural area and ceased to exist as a fraternity in 1427. The Crosier Fathers took over the modest buildings.4

In the city of Osnabrück the beginnings of a fraternity developed around 1415, founded by Henry Engeter with the support of Henry von Ahaus who sent a priest from Münster. But the house did not prosper. The company was dissolved around 1431 and was perhaps partly absorbed into the house at Herford which was founded around 1431.1

The house in Cologne must have come into being around 1417, on the fringe of the period under discussion. Brothers from the house in Münster, notably the rector Henry von Ahaus, with another priest Nicolas Dents and a few clerics, took over the house in Weidenbach from a group of canons living in community who later joined the congregation at Windesheim, and began this house.

The deed of approval of March 7th 1417 delivered by Archbishop Dietrich von Nözz conferred upon the Brothers the goal of: studium frequentare, which Barnikol terms ‘eine Verschleierung des eigentlichen Brüderlebens.’2

Archbishop Friedrich III von Saarwerden clearly defines the aim of the fraters, on the basis of a report of an investigation by certain doctors of theology, compiled after an annual visitation by the prior of the Canons Regular. The Brothers would live together communally, work and not beg in order to serve God.

Among these doctors was the Dutch scholar Henry of Gorcum.3 Julianus Cesarinus of Rome and the others thought that such communal living was permissible, but found it safer that the Brethren should attach themselves to an existing order, since the future Brothers would not be so circumspect and ardent as the present ones.4

The house in Cologne prospered, but what happened in Münster, Osterberg, Osnabrück and Cologne cast no new light upon the instistution of the brethren. This may partly be blamed on the lack of documentation, whether it never actually existed or just that it was not preserved. No documents, not even short biographical sketches of the first founders, seen to have been compiled on the spot.

Despite the role played by various lay people in the founding of these German houses, the communities consisted of priests and clerics with perhaps the isolated layman as in the Dutch settlements. The priests were in charge and as in Deventer and Zwolle, the clerics

must probably be considered as future priests. There are however, no data for this period.

Deventer did not provide any men for the foundation of the four German houses, Münster, Osterberg, Cologne and Osnabrück. Nonetheless, Rudolf Dier asserts that in 1401 the house of Deventer sent forty persons to various places in the service of the Lord.1 This figure seems much too high to me. It can certainly not apply to the Brotherhouse alone, since it had not so many members and could not either allow itself to become depopulated. We shall have to take into account the people who lived in the ‘clerks' house’ or hostel, or domus pauperum but since the number there was limited to twenty, the figure still remains incomprehensible. He may have meant that up to 1401 forty persons had been sent out as novices from Brotherhouse and hostel. Yet even so it remains high!

Shortly after 1400 thus, groups of Brethren existed in Deventer, Almelo, Münster, Liège, Amersfoort, Delft, Hoorn and Zwolle. Those in Almelo and Hoorn did not prosper and soon disappeared. Those of Delft and Amersfoort went through a difficult period. They lost many of their members to the Regulars, as did the house at Liège and that near Zwolle (Agnietenberg). In this last city, however, a new house arose which like those in Deventer and Münster, went on to flourish.

In Zwolle it was especially Henry Vopponis (or Voppenszn) of Gouda who from the very beginning upheld the ideals of the Devotio Moderna, notably the especial care for the schoolboys whom he admitted into his house and probably also into the neighbouring house which had been granted in 1384 to Geert Groote, John van de Gronde and John Brinckerinck. After it had been vacated by the gentlemen Wittecoep Thomaszoon, Wickman Ruerinck and John Eskenenzoon it appears to have been attached to the house of Henry Voppenszoon and used solely as a lodging for schoolboys. Henry Voppenszoon also devoted himself to the spiritual direction of the Sisters, who received new settlements in Zwolle. He continued thus until 1410 when he was succeeded as the Sisters' spiritual director by a Brother from Deventer, John of Haarlem whom we have already met. While the Devotio Moderna in Zwolle lived and worked on the periphery, the nobleman Meynoldus, a somewhat disappointed episcopal advisor, conceived the plan of founding a Brotherhouse in Zwolle itself.2 In 1394, with the willing

cooperation of the pastor of Zwolle, Renier Drijnen, and of the chapter of Deventer, he obtained on long lease a piece of land belonging to the Church and built a house on it. He succeeded in having Gerard Scadde of Calcar, a pupil of the school of Deventer who had joined the Brothers of that city, sent to Zwolle after a period of preparation, to be the leader of the new fraternity.1 He was probably accompanied by the clerks Henry Zeeflic and Gijsbert van Vlijmen, for the land taken in long lease stands in their name as a joint possession as does the house built by Meinold.2 Meinold and his brother Wito were received into the house, but did not belong to the community of the fratres which was officially instituted at the beginning of 1396.

Although not yet a priest, Gerard Scadde was solemnly installed as rector by Florens and John Vos, prior of Windesheim. At this time there were only three fraters but a layman later joined them to take care of the cooking and all external matters. It would truly be a house for fratres in communi viventes ad Dei cultum, for Brothers of the Common Life to the service of God.

Meinold scarcely lived to see the result of his action. He died in the same year.3

The first rector of the house of Zwolle, Gerard Scadde of Calcar, remained at its head until his death on December 23rd. 1409; he was a priest although his studies had not extended further than the school in Deventer.

The first were anxious years. Of the two clerics and one layman, namely the cook, Henry Zerflack died in 1398, leaving only the rector, one cleric (Gijsbert of Vlijmen) and the cook.

Florens Radewijs and the prior of Windesheim accordingly went to Zwolle to review the situation. They then transferred Henry Voppensz of Gouda, who was still officially a member of the Deventer house but had worked mostly in Zwolle, to the Zwolle house, making him the fourth member and provisor. He was a man of experience, but the numbers were not much augmented since the cleric Gijsbert of Vlijmen departed for Arnhem shortly after his ordination to be spiritual director to the Sisters of the convent of Bethany. He gained renown as a preacher, whose sermons appealed even to the Duke of Gelre, Reinold IV (1402-1243).4

But the house soon got over this bad patch, so that the rector was able to collaborate in new foundations, to wit the house at Albergen1 in 1406 and at Hulsbergen in 1407.

Probably at the urging of or at least after consultation with, the pastor of Almelo, John Hilbinc, successor of Everard Eza, the brothers Schulte informed the rector of the Zwolle house that they were willing to give their property in Albergen near Almelo for the founding of a Brotherhouse (1405). Gerard Scadde dispatched two of his Brothers to reconnoitre and on receiving their report decided to accept the offer.

On Nov. 25th, 1405, the house ‘Hoberghen’ was transferred, or in fact sold to the Zwolle house.2 The rector sent four persons there at the beginning of 1406 to put the house in order. Two of them soon returned to Zwolle, but four others speedily arrived to reinforce the community in Albergen.

Up to this it was entirely a lay undertaking, but on July 2nd, 1407, the then rector Henry Wetter was ordained priest. He was thirty years old at the time, born in Marck in West Germany, a pupil of the Zwolle school, afterwards cleric in the Brotherhouse and now ordained priest for the new function. He fitted in well with his new surroundings, a farmer like the others, who liked to wear clogs even when visiting the deacon and chapter of Oldenzaal. Yet he governed the house for many years, for he only died in 1466 and so lived to see his house transformed into a monastery in 1447 and admitted into the congregation of Windesheim. Henry Wetter did not himself become a monastic. Although the transition to the monastery had not been intended by the Brethren of Albergen it was perhaps in keeping with the nature of the rural situation. It can nevertheless be said that the foundation was successful. This was partly due to the assistance which the rector Henry Wetter received from Henry ten Weteringhe who was sent to Albergen as a cleric but was soon ordained priest. He finally achieved the independence of the house of Albergen to which all the possessions were transferred.3

Two laymen were also responsible for the foundation of the house at Hulsbergen. Two weavers, under the guidance of rector Scadde, came to the authorities, in order to begin a communal life. For this purpose they rented a house just outside the city of Zwolle and placed

themselves under the direction of the Gregoryhouse there. They sought solitude, however, and in 1407 succeeded in obtaining from Ridder Henry Bentink a piece of ground two morgens in size in the neighbourhood of Hulsbergen near Hattem, in the parish of Heerde. In actual fact Henry Bentink made over this property on August 20th 1407 to the rector of the Zwolle house, Gerard Scadde, Master Peter Haefsch and Arnold of Broeckhuijsen, brothers from Zwolle, again in joint tenure. This was the beginning of the house of St. Jerome in Hulsbergen.1 The frater Arnold of Broeckhuijsen remained there for some time, before he began his work in Albergen. Like Albergen, the foundation at Hulsbergen retained its rural character and the Brethren from Zwolle sometimes used it as a rest or holiday house, on Christmas Day 1409 for example when the Brothers from Zwolle were returning from the funeral of their rector Gerard Scadde van Calcar who had died two days before Christmas and was buried at Windesheim on Christmas Eve. After the funeral the Brothers crossed the IJssel and celebrated Christmas night in Hulsbergen, despite the poverty still prevailing there.2

In their agrarian character these two foundations differed from the other Brotherhouses which were all established in cities. The houses in the country only partly corresponded with the intentions of the first Brethren who carried on the work of Geert Groote to the extent that they aspired to an active life alongside the contemplative. Schoolboys had their especial interest and received religious guidance from them.

Albergen and Hulsbergen naturally possessed no schools, thus depriving the Brethren of one of their main tasks. It is obvious that these country Brothers will have tried to make their living from agriculture. This demanded so much of their energy that little time will have been left for the copying of books. They were outposts of the fraternity and constantly in danger of becoming monasteries - Albergen was not able to put up sufficient resistance. Hulsbergen would be saved for the time being by its close contacts with the Zwolle house. It might be assumed that the foundation of these two houses from the young house at Zwolle was a tour de force which entirely drained its resources. This, however, was not so.

At the death of Gerard Scadde of Calcar (23rd Dec. 1409) the Zwolle

house consisted of four priests, four clerici and two laymen.1 On the feast of the Epiphany 1410, these ten persons elected Theodore Hermanz of Herxen as their new rector.2

We have here the same categories as are met with elsewhere or for that matter everywhere: priests, clerici and laymen. The first are in charge; the laymen do the most humble work and rarely aspire to anything higher. A closer look at the names, however, shows that the clerics usually attain to the priesthood. There is first of all Gerard Scadde, a brother of the deceased rector, who had entered from the University of Prague shortly after 1400, appears here as a priest and later becomes rector in 's Hertogenbosch.3

We already know Master Gijsbert of Vlijmen as one of the first to enter. He had been for some time confessor and director of the Sisters of the house of Bethany in Arnhem and died in the year 1410.4

Dirk Hermanz of Herxen, whose life will shortly be discussed in more detail, entered the fraternity directly from the school of Deventer, first as a cleric. The date of his ordination is not known.

Master Rutger of Son was procurator of the Zwolle house in 1409. This dignity was usually reserved for a Brother who had been ordained priest. Shortly afterwards he was made rector of Hulsbergen.5

The four clerics mentioned here all occur later as priests; John of Rees became pater and rector of the Franciscan Brothers of St. Janskamp (Vollenhove).6 Goswinus Herck became confessor of the sisters at Goch,7 Hubert Helmond is later mentioned as a priest8 and finally Godfrid van den Bosch said his first mass as librarian in 1420.9

This tendency can also be observed later and to our mind is of great significance for the character of the Brethren of the Common Life.

We know nothing about the studies of most of these, but we are better informed concerning Gerard Scadde of Calcar, brother of the rector of the same name, and Dirk of Herxen.

This Gerard Scadde visited his brother in Zwolle in 1404, having recently returned from the University of Prague (a studio Pragensi).10 This is the fourth and last report which mentions the study of Dutch Modern Devotionalists in Prague. The students in question were

Geert Groote(?),1 Mater Florens Radewijns who received the degree of Master of Arts there in 1378,2 Lubbert ten Busch, and this Gerard Scadde.

Thomas a Kempis tells us of Lubbert Berneri or ten Busch of Zwolle, that having completed the Latin school he departed for Prague with several fellow students of his own age. He returned after gaining his baccalaureat (1385); secretly he sought to leave the world and to serve Christ. He approached Florens Radewijns in Deventer and was there admitted to the fraternity.3 There is also the report from the Narratio of Jacob Trajecti concerning Gerard Scadde of Calcar, the brother of the then rector, who entered around 1404, coming from his studies in Prague.4 There is no indication that these gentlemen studied any theology. In this connection it might also be mentioned that John Cele, a friend of Groote though not a Brother of the Gommon Life, also made plans to go to Prague. It is not established, however, whether these plans were ever carried out. His name does not occur in the Monumenta Universitatis Pragensis. The important thing is that all these completed their academic studies before entering the Brotherhood. Turning to the studies of the Brethren we find that no Brother studied at a university after entering. Only the short-lived house of Trier devoted any attention to higher education. This was around the year 1500 (see Chapter XIV).

I do not think one is justified in assuming that Geert Groote ever studied in Prague. To begin with the only evidence is that of Peter Horn who wrote a hundred years after the time of the supposed studies, i.e. between 1358 and 1362, and on the same pages mentions study at the school in Cologne for which there was certainly no time in Groote's life. Unfortunately the documents of the University of Prague only begin in 1367. In view of the fact that Groote obtained his Master's Degree in Paris in 1358 and is mentioned in 1362 as student, and in 1363 as a law student, one would have to possess extremely potent reasons for assuming that he spent the intervening

years away. The Paris rotulus of February 7th 1366 assumes in fact that Groote was a student in Paris from 1358 up to that day, that is, ‘for more than seven years.’1 Groote's studies in Prague thus must be relegated to the realm of fables until better proof is forthcoming. The importance of this conclusion lies in the fact that the beginnings of a religious revival can be ascertained in Prague from around 1360, while it is also established that various Netherlanders studied at the University of Prague.

 

This poses the problem of whether the Dutch Devotionalists may perhaps have acquired their ideals in Prague, and whether it should not be said that the Modern Devotion originated there. It is indeed possible that some Netherlanders may have come under the religious influence of Prague, for from 1367, the year for which we possess a list of baccalaurei and licentiati and professors, various Netherlanders attended the University. Searching for Dutch names in such lists is always a hazardous affair since the place names and the students' places of origin are often garbled and the names of some German places resemble those of Dutch towns. In addition the same names sometimes occur more than once - for baccalaureat and degree examinations. There are some, however, concerning whom no doubt can exist, for example Wilhelmus dictus Vroyde Trajectensis.2 He is the man who in 1381 was considered for the post of head of the school of Zwolle. The doubt about others is greater but I think one can safely say that, in the years between 1367 and 1383, about two or three Netherlanders arrived in Prague each year. Among these, as we have seen, were some who later became members of the Modern Devotion, for instance Florens Radewijns (ca 1378). After 1384 Lubbert (Berneri) ten Busch from Zwolle, and Gerard Scadde of Calcar only after 1400. Neither of these latter can be considered as having brought the ideas of the Devotion from Prague to the Netherlands. The Modern Devotion was already flourishing in the Netherlands when they left to commence their studies in Prague.

After Höfter in the last century, Ed. Winter in the 20th has defended the theory that the Modern Devotion originated not in the Netherlands but in Bohemia. His latest publication has even a somewhat propagandist character and contains various characteristics of the

Modern Devotion which do not accord at all with what we know of the religious movement in the Netherlands.1

When dealing with history the application of certain current names to similar phenomena is not generally to be recommended, since this tends to create confusion. In Prague, however, certain persons and institutions can be noted which bear some resemblance to what happened in Deventer. In 1938 Winter drew attention to the similarity between the congregation of Augustinian canons Regular and those of Windesheim, and further to certain penitential preachers in Prague, of whom one at least shows so much resemblance to Geert Groote, that he might have served as his model and example. There can even be said to have existed in Prague a house of Brethren of the Common Life. Ed. Winter develops this theme principally in his Academic Address of 1964.2

If one is to deduce an original connection from the similarity between the phenomena in Prague and Deventer, one must in my opinion examine and describe as thoroughly as possible the following points. In the first place the character, aim, means and period of activity of the penitential preachers between the years 1360 and 1384 must be defined as accurately as possible. Before 1360 there was little or nothing of note in Prague or in Deventer and after Geert Groote's death the Dutch Devotionalists no longer needed the example of Prague on essential points. Secondly, it must be proved that what happened in Prague was more than a normal reaction to certain abuses in the religious life within the Church which had their origin in history, and had possessed a distinctive character. Thirdly, in establishing the list of Netherlanders who studied in Prague one must bear in mind that during the period in question the organization and preponderance of the Germanic teachers and students led them to hold themselves aloof. It would be quite possible that the Netherlands Arts students, boys between 16 and 20, did not notice at all what was happening among the Czech population of the city of Prague. Fourthly, the Dutch Modern Devotion of the first years must be accurately described as it is revealed from contemporary sources.

Prague did indeed contain a monastery of the Canons Regular, Raudnitz, founded in 1333. From 1350 onwards this monastery gave rise to daughter foundations, including Glatz (1350), Karlshof, Wit-

tingau (1367), Sternberg and Landskron (1371), and was thus the focal point of a congregation called Raudnitz.

This was no world-shaking event and it is extremely doubtful whether it ever reached the ears of the Dutch students in Prague. On the other hand it did not need Raudnitz to inspire Geert Groote and later his pupils, to found Windesheim and three other monasteries which formed the beginnings of the Congregation.

The idea of bringing together isolated monasteries was very prevalent in the 14th century. The first Windesheimers had the example not only of the famous Lateran congregation or that of St. Victor in Paris, but of at least 5 other European congregations of their order.

There is thus no evidence at all for the influence of Raudnitz upon Geert Groote.

Meanwhile, attempts were being made in Prague to reform the Church situation. To this end the Archbishop of Prague, Ernest de Pardubice (1343-1364) already held synods and made the usual decrees. They may be compared with the various synodal decrees promulgated by Pardubice's contemporary in the See of Utrecht, John of Arkel (1342-1364). Geert Groote thus could make the acquaintance of such decrees at home and did so, as he knew those of Arnold of Hoorn, promulgated in 1374.1

In general the reformers did not suffer from lack of regulations. They required a burning zeal which laid the finger on the wound without respect of persons. There was no dearth of such individuals in Prague.

During the last years of the Archbishop in question, the regular priest, Conrad von Waldhausen, who served as pastor in four churches successively in Prague, commenced his preaching activities. He journeyed round and held many sermons for students. Accused of heresy by the Dominican and Augustinian hermits, he was obliged to justify himself in Rome, but seems not to have been condemned. He died in 1369 and was buried in the ‘Teynkirche’ in Prague where he had been parish priest.

If one assumes that Geert Groote studied in Prague around 1359-1362, he might have heard this preacher. However, as we saw, there is little or no justification for assuming that Groote actually did study in Prague during this period.2 In any case Groote might have heard similar sermons in many places.

Conrad von Waldhausen's collaborator and in a certain sense his successor, was Militsch von Kremsier (Milič de Kromeřiž). As a high official of Charles IV, he accompanied him on his travels (1358-1363), became a canon in Prague, was ordained priest, but in 1363 renounced his prebend and dignities and after a short retreat began to preach.

He gave popular sermons lasting two to three hours; his stringent fasts brought on a nervous condition so that he discovered that the antichrist was about to come (1365-1367). He took Charles IV to be the antichrist and widely proclaimed this fact. This led to his imprisonment, first in Prague and then in Rome. He was, however, released and was present at the return of Pope Urban V in Rome and at the visit of the Emperor (Oct. 1368). From this time on the antichrist lost his personal character. Militsch employs the term as a symbolic name for the failings of the Church.

In 1372 he began to concern himself with the fate of fallen women and established a house for them, the New Jerusalem. Those who were admitted to this house had to wear a sort of uniform and received daily Communion. When certain members of the clergy compiled a list of complaints against him, they included among their accusations the setting up of a house for these ‘prostitutes’ and the introduction of the communal life by a couple of priests.1 Arraigned in 1374 he went to Avignon, where he died on June 29th 1374. As Ed. Winter observes, his life shows a certain resemblance to that of Groote.2 He tries to persuade the reader, however, that this resemblance is in fact imitation, for example: ‘Über die Vorgänge die sich in Böhmen von 1372-1374 abspielten, war er (Groot) sicherlich unterrichtet. Die Gründung des neuen Jerusalem nicht zuletzt als Heimstätte für gefallene Frauen, die Errichtung eines Predigers seminar, das gemeinsame Leben von Frauen und Männern in Gemeinschaften, die keine Ordensgelübde kannten, alles das musste ihn (Groote) aufs stärkste bewegen, und ist es nicht zufällig, dass Geert Groote's Leben von nun ab so viele Parallelen mit dem von Militsch aufweist.’3 ‘And so it does not surprise us that precisely those reports, letters and conversations which Geert Groote exchanged with William Vroede of Utrecht from the decisive Bohemian years of 1373-74, have been preserved.’

Here the writer has ante-dated the letters by about 8 years. There is nothing about Prague in the letters except that a commentary on

Matthew by John Chrysostom1 was being copied for Groote. ‘Aber wir können als sicher annehmen, dass die Aufsehenerregenden Vorgänge um die Musterpfarrer von Militsch nicht den Aufmerksamkeit Vroedes und Grootes entgangen sind.’2

Vroede will probably have been in Prague at the time of Militsch's death:3 ‘It is thus no coincidence that Geert Groote's conversion falls in the history of religious thought in 1373-1374, years which were so stirring for Bohemia.’4 From a comment made by Groote to Vroede that the particular book of Chrysostom was being copied for him in Prague, Winter deduces Groote's interest in Prague and its book market.5 He is supposed to have advised John Cele and Florens Radewijns to go to Prague6 and Gerard Zerbold of Zutphen was later sent there.7 All these suggestions are completely unsupported by fact. Winter considers them to be merely signs but is confident that on further study, they will broaden and deepen.8

He deduces from all this that the return to the life of the early Church, the drawing of strength from the inner life, and the happenings in the chapel of the New Jerusalem were simply ‘adopted and strongly developed’ by Geert Groote. I shall not go into this here, except to point out that Groote did renounce his prebend, while Florens Radewijns did not. Groote moreover helped to ensure that John van de Gronde was provided with a permanent income.

The popular preaching in Prague did not cease at Militsch's departure. Others stepped forward to continue the work. Two speakers soon came to prominence; Matthias van Janov, who had studied in Paris from 1373 to 1381, and Thomas of Stitne (1331-1401).

Ed. Winter makes no attempt to show that they exercised any influence on Groote, although Stitne was his contemporary.

The time must indeed have come when Groote stood on his own feet, and in the years 1381 to 1384 he knew himself what he had to do and did it. According to Winter both Matthias of Janov and Thomas of Stitne influenced the later Devotionalists (notably Gerard Zerbolt and Thomas a Kempis.)

Matthias of Janov criticised many Church conditions and customs and urged a more simple and personal ‘evangelical’ concept. He thought the antichrist was personified in the pope. He expected no salvation from the Council, but rather from a detachment from the world and the imitation of Christ, to which the faithful must be exhorted by good clergymen. For the priests this entailed the relinquishing of prebends and for the faithful daily Communion. He advocates making a clean sweep of the relics with the accompanying indulgences and of the stories of false miracles. His doctrine on the sources of faith does not differ in essentials, although it does in vocabulary, from that of the great scholastics or even from that of the Council of Trent. He distinguishes between the visible and the invisible Church, but without sundering them entirely.

Thomas of stitne (1331-1401) was not a priest, but a married layman. Through his works and preaching he clashed with the University, who wished to reserve preaching and spiritual matters for the priests. They also forbade the use of the vernacular (Czech). This problem will be discussed later, since it also occurred to some extent among the first Devotionalists. For the rest, Thomas of Stitne was no revolutionary in church matters. He disapproved of monasteries, however, mistrusted the pilgrims' tales of miracles and despised the too ardent veneration of statues and images. In Prague he preached the Bible and the Eucharist, urged a more personal religious conviction and piety, better religious knowledge and a firm hope of salvation in Christ. At the same time he opposed legalism, preoccupation with externals, fanaticism and corruption. A breach seemed to be developing between the visible and the invisible Church, between the community of the faithful (both the good and the bad) and the church of the righteous, which Wyclif was proclaiming in those days. His doctrine was arousing sympathy among certain reformers in Prague, including Jan Hus. Here the reformatores were approaching the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Certain similarities or analogies can also be detected here; the struggle against abuses, the fostering of inner religious feeling and the limiting of external and formalistic methods; the reading of the Holy Scriptures in the vernacular; the contempt for the world and the imitation of Christ. These are aims and objectives which occur frequently and in very many places, since they are expressions of man's struggle against temptation and sin. Also the introduction of the communal life by a couple of priests was done either too generally or with too little principle among the Czechs.

Groote's stress on the invisible Church of which Christ is head (not, however, to be separated from the visible, with the pope at her head) bears most resemblance to Stitne's way of thinking. But it is in no way surprising that, during the great Western Schism, such an opinion of the Church may have been formulated independently by various people, especially since sufficient support for these ideas could be found in many writers including St. Augustine. We have already seen, moreover, how personal was Groote's rendering of his theory, and linked with existing views on the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.

Unlike their counterparts in Prague the first Dutch Devotionalists eschewed all radicalism. Although Groote's struggle against the Focarists may bear some resemblance to that in Prague, Groote's was founded on Church law. He was so convinced of the value of this law and of its absolute suitability that he can scarcely be associated with the Czechs as an opponent of legalism. The Modern Devotionalists never used the word Antichrist, of which the Czechs, like Wyclif, were so fond. They never even applied it to the heretics they opposed. The ideal of daily Communion for the faithful was never proposed either by Groote or by his first disciples. Groote's primary idea was a daily spiritual communion at mass. The Brethren and Sisters usually communicated in the real sense about every fortnight in accordance with the prevailing monastic practice. The first Devotionalists did not either suggest any limitation of the veneration of images or of indulgences. Indeed, from Groote's Vitae and from most of the Devotionalists one might deduce a complete absence of any critical sense regarding visions, prophecies and miracles. Thomas a Kempis expressed himself on the subject of pilgrimages, but one wonders if his disapproval is not occasioned more by his struggle not to leave the cell than by any lack of esteem for pilgrimages. He shared the Brothers' facility for accepting signs and statements as miracles and prophecies. It is therefore difficult to accept that the corresponding phenomena and analogies were brought from Prague to Deventer by students: Florens Radewijns, Lubbert ten Busch and about twenty years later Gerard Scadde of Calcar. They were not students of Theology but of the Arts, they were very young at the time of their stay in Prague and did not understand Czech. The Czech reformers of whom we have spoken were not popular in university and German circles.

Ed. Winter has accurately given the dates of the preachers' activities in Prague, but his chronology of Geert Groote is not acceptable

Magister in 1358, professor in Paris in 1363 (he has magister actu regens in the rotulus of 1363, whereas in fact the entry is scholaris in legibus);1 between 1360 and 1365 he spent some time in Prague.2 As we saw, this last is based only on the evidence of Peter Horn, while the documents state that Groote was a student in Paris on Nov. 27th 1362, 17th Jan. 1363, 17th May 1365 and 7th February 1366. It is even said in 1366 that after gaining his Master's degree Groote studied various subjects in Paris for seven years.3 These facts are definitely established and while they do not rule out completely the possibility of a visit to Prague, they do exclude any lengthy period of study. Groote is supposed to have worked in Orleans from 1365 to 1370, which cannot be reconciled with the foregoing facts. From 1370 to 1373 he is said to have lived with the Carthusians in Monnikhuizen: ‘Auch mit den Karthäusern dürfte Groote sicherlich schon in Prag in engere Verbindung getreten sein.’4 In 1374 he burnt his magic books on the market place, ‘more or less under the influence of events in Bohemia.’5 From 1374 to 1379 Groote fought for his new ideals and maintained contact with Militsch.6 In order to render this rather more acceptable Winter as we have said has ante-dated the exchange of letters between Groote and William Vroede.

Finally, the character given to the (Dutch) Devotio Moderna is completely at variance with the facts, as will be shown in this book. We shall mention here a few points which are demonstrably false: ‘Die devotio moderna war eine Durchgangstufe auf dem Wege zur geistigen Emanzipatien des europäischen Bürgertum zur Befreiung von der allmächtigen Herschaft des Klerus und von den mittelalterlichen Frömmigkeitsformen und Geboten.’7 Imagine the poor Brothers, isolated from the world, acting as confessors to the Sisters.

‘Die Devotio Moderna war in der Frömmigkeit eine Parallel-bewegung zur Via Moderna in der Philosophie,’8 etc. This is an inaccurate use of the word Moderna - which in the Middle Ages had no connotation of new but of now - and is moreover in conflict with what is known of the

philosophy of Geert Groote. He was a Nominalist while a student in Paris, but later rejected this system.1

The Devotio Moderna ‘appeals principally to the laity.’2 But all the leaders of the Devotionalists, both Brethren and canons, were priests. While the clerics among the Brethren prepared for their ordination, the few laymen in the houses performed the most menial of tasks.

‘Die starken frühhumanistischen Anregungen dürfen beim Entstehen der Devotio Moderna nicht übersehen werden.’3 Winter reckons among these the individuality of the person: ‘Er steht der Einzelne vor Gott und die Gemeinschaft der Kirche tritt zurück.’ This is because they took no vows. They could opt out and retained their own property.4 This is a sweeping statement which recurs frequently and so long as no supporting evidence is offered, it is not so easy to prove the contrary. In actual fact the Brethren found it difficult to withdraw and they certainly did not keep their own property, not to mention the canons who were virtually excluded by this qualification from the Devotio Moderna. And yet they provided the best writers and were the most widespread throughout Europe.

If all this was so in Bohemia, as Winter imagines, he thereby gives so many proofs that the Devotio Moderna in the Netherlands was a completely different movement. But worse is to come: ‘Radewijns begründete in Deventer und J. Cele in Zwolle gut ausgestattete städtische achtklassenschule die von den Brüdern des gemeinsamen lebens betreut wurden. Diese lehrstätten entwickelten sich zu Musterschulen für Deutschland, ja für ganz Europa.’5 This statement was made at an academic lecture in Berlin in 1964, by a person who considers himself a specialist in the history of the Devotio Moderna!

Neither is it true that ‘die Devotio Moderna sich... nur unter grössten schwierigkeiten gegen die kirchliche Hiërarchie durchsetzen konnte.’6 In the first place the Devotio Moderna is here again confined to the Brethren and Sisters. In actual fact the bishops, and notably the bishops of Utrecht, protected them against attacks by lower persons such as certain Dominicans. Nor did the Council of Constance offer any opportunity to their opponents. From 1439 onwards the Roman Curia showed the Brothers the way to be faithful to their ideals in a manner more in accordance with canon law.

Winter displays enviable certainty in his statement concerning the

origin of methodical meditation. He bases his pronouncement on Groote's journals which were given to Thomas a Kempis, canon of the Agnietenberg, and on the orders of J. Vos, prior of Windesheim.1

It is clear from all this that Ed. Winter has provided no proof that the Devotio Moderna originated in Prague and was brought from thence to the Netherlands. Apart from the fact that he gives an inaccurate picture of the Devotio Moderna in the Netherlands, we have shown that, despite a certain external similarity and perhaps some personal contact, the events in Prague in no way resembled what was happening in the Netherlands. The Netherlands Devotio lacked the radicalism of the Czech.

 

Returning from our excursion to Prague in connection with the education of the priest Gerard Scadde of Calcar at the University of Prague, we make the closer acquaintance of the new rector of Zwolle, Dirk of Herxen (1410-1457), one of the most prominent of the Brethren's rectors. He was the son of a well-to-do farming family from Herxen, a hamlet near Wijhe between Zwolle and Deventer. Of religious disposition and strictly reared at home, he wished after attending the school in Deventer - it is not known for how many years - to enter a Carthusian monastery, since he considered this the safest path for himself.2 On the other hand he had an inclination towards active pastoral work. Unable to reach a decision he sought the advice of John Vos of Heusden, prior in Windesheim. Although the prior found him fitted for the monastery, he gave no thought to the advantages which might later accrue to Windesheim through this rich young man, but advised him to apply to the Brethren who at this time were very poor. There Dirk revealed himself as a suitable member of the Brethren of the Common Life, one who despised the world and himself, a hard worker, an extremely pious man, revered by the Brothers. When he was chosen rector at the age of 29 he was already a priest.3 He certainly studied no further than the Latin school, but by self-study acquired considerable knowledge of the holy Scriptures, theology, church law and history. He proved a model rector who despite his severity, retained the sympathy of the Brethren, brought the house to prosperity and enjoyed the general esteem of the ecclesiastical and secular functionaries. More and more convents requested a chaplain from the Zwolle house. Although it was not easy

for the rector to assume such duties he was opposed to the sisters taking a secular priest as confessor.1 He was however, clerical. He sent a priest as spiritual director to the brothers of St. Janskamp near Vollenhove, laymen who followed the third order of St. Francis, and ensured that the priests and clerics in this house received greater authority and exercised more guidance.2

Dirk of Herxen's activities, his direction, the founding of new houses, and his treatises do not come within the intended scope of this chapter and will therefore be dealt with later. Around 1415, he gave to Zwolle the consuetudines which will presently be discussed in more detail. At that time (2nd May 1415)3 the house contained three priests and twelve others (so far as I can make out ten clerics and two laymen). This leads us once again to discover whether all these clerics became priests. Shortly afterwards (around 1420) ten fraters died of the plague and according to the chronicle there was no priest among them,4 three noted among the non-priests in 1415, i.e. Dirk of Rijcroede, Stephen of Harderwijk and John Sijns and also two who are known to have died as laymen: Arnold of Vollenhove and Gerard Brand. Of the twelve mentioned above there remain seven clerics who must, if possible, be traced to the priesthood. We have already shown that three of them, John Rees, Goswinus Herk and Hubert Helmond did become priests, which leaves four. No further mention is found of Godfrid Vrient. Gerard Rees became a priest and the first rector of Doesburg.5 Gerard of Vollenhove later appears as a priest6 and John of Calcar was the second rector of 's-Hertogenbosch and thus a priest.7

In the introduction to the Narratio de inchoatione domus clericorum in Zwolle, M. Schoengen examines the origin and date of composition of the statutes of the Zwolle house, which he published as Appendix II. He comes to the conclusion that the essential content of these statutes goes back to those of Deventer, that is, in fact, to Florens Radewijns. They were brought to Zwolle from Deventer by the first rector, Gerard Scadde of Calcar, and applied from that time onwards. In codifying them Dirk of Herxen altered certain passages and later they were to some extent adapted to the times. The chronicler tells us for example that Henry of Herxen raised the limit of expenditure on behalf of the fraters, which stood at 100 French écus. He justified

this by the scanty proceeds from landed property and the increasing alms. It is probable however, that the rector was driven to take this step by the devaluation of money and subsequent rise in prices, if the Brothers were not to die of distress. Schoengen thinks that Dirk of Herxen wrote down these Consuetudines between 1415 and 1424, that is, between a certain document which he mentions, the significance of which has in my opinion been overestimated, and the founding of the fraternity in den Bosch. His arguments are not particularly convincing, but it is important for our purpose to know that these consuetudines reached the other houses of the Brethren from Deventer by way of Zwolle and were used as their rule of life.1 They may be compared with the statutes published by A. Hyma which probably come from the house of Deventer.2

The consuetudines are conducive to the maintenance of peace and harmony3 and to progress in virtue. It is significant that their compiler feels himself obliged to prove from church law that it is permitted to have such statutes. This is evidently directed against those who objected that the Brothers acted as monastics yet belonged to no particular order. Hence he gives a fundamental exposition of the nature of the Brethren of the Common Life: the priests and clerics (laymen are not mentioned) who lead a communal life, living by the work of their hands, usually writing, and from church proceeds and properties? They live sober lives, visit the churches in a devout manner, respectfully obey the prelates and pastors, wear clothing that is simple but in keeping with their clerical condition. They zealously uphold the canons and decrees of the Fathers and show themselves not only irreproachable but exemplary for others, so that they may thus discharge to God a pleasing religion, not only through their own behaviour but also by that of others inspired by their preaching and example.

Most of these statements are derived from the Cologne doctors and will be discussed later. They were also incorporated into the induction deeds of bishops and popes so that they keep recurring. What follows next deals with the Brothers' ideas on the practice of virtue. The basis of their thought is purity. Virtue must be attained first of all by knowledge of self, and particularly of one's vices and passions. The Brothers

must combat these by all manner of mortifications. They must zealously strive after humility, patience and obedience. Then follow certain writers whose books are mentioned. They describe this way of life as the safest path. To this end all spiritual exercise must be directed: prayer, meditation, spiritual reading, manual work, vigils, fasting, the inner and outward attitude.

Prayer is not mentioned for the moment, although meditation is. Here we touch upon the famous question of whether the Brothers practised and propagated the so-called methodical meditation so that it became customary in the monasteries and was finally adopted by St. Ignatius Loyola. We shall return to this problem after describing the development of the Devotio Moderna. Suffice it to note here that to my mind there can be no question in these customs of a methodical meditation to which an hour or half an hour was devoted every day. There was no place for such an exercise in the daily routine. The meditation we are concerned with here had to be done continuously by, so to speak, ruminating on the matter for meditation indefesse ruminare.1 All through the day, even during the task of copying, the subject appointed for that day had to be called to mind. In this matter were comprised the great mysteries of the faith, the Four Last Things, sin, the Redemption and the life of Christ. These subjects were apportioned throughout the week so that those which inspired fear were alternated with those which gave comfort. Meditation today on hell, tomorrow on heaven. In addition it was recommended to reflect on the passion of Christ every morning during Holy Mass. It was good to read a particular point every morning, afternoon and evening in order to refresh the memory.

In Zwolle the Brothers rose at half past three and as we saw, earlier in Deventer, at first at three o'clock and later at four, after seven hours' sleep. They had immediately to renew their good intentions and so prepare themselves for the praying of the hours (breviary). This was obligatory for the priests and clerics but not every day in the same manner. On feast-days the priests and clerici read the canonical hours in their chapel, together with the hours (cursus) of the Holy Virgin. On workdays the priests read the breviary together, but the clerici read two by two the hours of the Holy Cross with the cursus of the Holy Virgin, the psalms of the matins and the hours for the dead. Later this seems to have been changed; matins and prime were

read together and the other hours and vespers separately, except on feast days. Nones were also prayed together.1 It will not be superfluous to point out that the prayers were said moderate et modeste.2

An hour was set aside every morning, immediately after the breviary, for the study of the Holy Scriptures. This was a spiritual reading intended to serve as food for meditation and not as an introduction to theology. The Brethren had had no preparation for theological studies.3

It is noteworthy that the Brothers went to the parish church every morning at the same time, but not in procession, to hear mass. They went on Sundays to High Mass and on week days to an early low Mass. Assistance at Mass and reflection on Christ's passion was intended to lead the Brothers to spiritual Communion.4

After the model of various monastic foundations, the performance of manual work was viewed as a necessary variation to the spiritual exercises. Their writing bore some resemblance to the spiritual programme. The Brothers wrote from seven to ten and from twelve till three. The priests did an hour's less writing in the mornings, probably because they had the opportunity then of saying mass. In Lent they all worked on until eleven o'clock instead of ten, but then they only recommenced at one. While working they might meditate or keep their minds on God by offering up little prayers. There was reading aloud during meals and every now and then the rector would check by asking someone what had been read. During the summer the Brothers were allowed to take a little nap at their places at table until such time as the reader had finished his meal. This was not really permitted in winter, except for a few minutes - the time to sing a miserere. After vespers writing continued, from 5 to 7, until the evening meal and compline. The Brothers were ‘free’ from seven till eight o'clock to potter about in their rooms. At half past eight everyone had to be in bed.5

On Sundays and feast days the Brothers came together after the midday meal for the collation. A previously chosen passage from the Scriptures was then read aloud and a discussion on it was held, not ad scientiam but to incite devotion and for the exercise of brotherly love. This discussion was continued after the evening meal.

In addition, on Sundays and feast days, after all the religious exer-

cises in the church had been completed, the fraters held a sort of instruction for the schoolboys and anyone else who wished to attend. A passage from the Scriptures was read aloud in the vernacular and afterwards a talk was given (not a sermon) on the virtues and vices, contempt for the world, God's works and so forth. In order that this exhortation directed at each individual might take better effect, each Brother took a boy with him to his cell to advise him personally or to help him, although not in difficult matters or in questions for the confessional. These had to be left to the rector to deal with. They were probably conscious that this practice was not without its dangers; the visit might not last longer than half an hour.

There is also mention of the correption, which resembled the monastic chapter, and of the task of the rector, procurator, librarian, the Brother who looked after the clothes, the infirmarian, and other more menial functionaries. It is striking that none of these surviving statutes mentions a teacher or any person who might have given lessons outside the house.

Then follow statements on the situation at the monthly meeting at which the Brothers discussed the ways in which the community might be improved and the qualities the Brethren should possess. Here too, there is considerable resemblance to the monastic noviciate, the clothing which, however, was not accompanied by vows. The recently admitted member had, however, according to these consuetudines, to declare before a notary and witnesses, that he had no proprietary right to the house or the possessions of the house and that should he leave or be sent away he could make no claim on whatever the house acquired from his side. In such a case he might take with him only his clothing. He also had to promise that his heirs would have no rights at all with which to worry the Brothers.1 A brother could thus only return very shabbily to the world!

According to these consuetudines it was the founders' intention to make religion an inner experience. Various means were employed to make the Brothers constantly aware of their work for God. Hence the making of the good intentions immediately upon rising, the rumination on the proposed subjects for meditation, the recollection of their resolutions during the day, the short prayers during work, the spiritual reading from the Bible, the collation and the correption, the reading aloud in the refectory with checks to see if the Brothers were

paying attention. All this demanded an exceptional intensity of spiritual life, scarcely relieved by the periods of writing. The fraters will have been only too pleased when evening came and they could spend an hour doing what they liked. This intense inner life seems to me to characterize these Brothers, this Devotio Moderna. But in stressing the inner devout life, the Brothers were not hostile to the outward ceremonies such as the Holy Mass, or the breviary and the hours. Here too they try to promote an inner sympathy. This appears especially from the direction to ponder on the passion of the Lord during mass and to attain a spiritual communion. The value attached by the compilers of the consuetudines to these church ceremonies is revealed particularly by what they say about prayer. If anyone was ill, a prayer was to be added to matins and vespers: Deus infirmitates humane etc. When anyone was anointed they daily read for him the seven penitential psalms. In case of a prolonged illness this could be replaced by a litany. At the hour of death, the others would pray the seven penitential psalms and say the litany. After the death of a Brother the remaining brethren would immediately pray the vigil with nine lessons and continue throughout the octave. Furthermore, until the thirtieth day, there would daily be the vigil of three lectiones and for a year an oration at the end of matins and vespers. In addition each frater will pray a psalterium for the deceased and the priests together will say thirty Masses. Finally there were the anniversary Masses. Vigils and Masses were also said at the death of the Brethrens' parents and at the deaths of members of the monasteries of Windesheim, St. Agnietenberg, Bethlehem, for the Sisters within the parish and the Brothers of the Florens house, St. Jerome of Hulsbergen and Albergen and also for deceased benefactors. These and others could make foundations for Masses and memoriae and from these arose the so-called ordinaria. A similar one has been preserved from the fraternity at Hildesheim and in no way diverges from those of other churches and monasteries. In this respect the fraternities are revealed as latemediaeval institutions attaching considerable value to the number of oral prayers, even to excess, and this despite all the emphasis upon the inner life, upon meditation and rumination, as revealed in the works of Florens Radewijns, Gerard Zerbolt and the Windesheimers which will be discussed later. The receiving of Holy Communion on 16 feast days in the year departed little from the customs of the religious of that time.1

This linking of inward and outward devotion is revealed too the biographies as transmitted by R. Dier. Florens Radewijns also visited the church at night when possible, and when the Angelus was rung during a meal he suddenly stood up from the ground where he was sitting, quickly laying down his plate.1 John Brinckerinck advised that one should very frequently offer oneself to God and never despair on account of one's own imperfection, but always call upon God's help in order to make progress and direct one's intentions to God in all works2 or seek only God as Florens said.3

The narratio of the house at Zwolle is somewhat more modest in describing the virtues of the fraters, but here too devotion is highly esteemed. Thomas a Kempis lays emphasis upon the inward along with the outward devotion. Of Florens Radewijns for example, he writes: ‘He insisted upon the spiritual life and the proposed meditations.’4 ‘He compelled respect from everyone by his religious attitude in the choir.’5 ‘He was granted visions and his prayers were answered in a miraculous way.’6 This devout spirit also emanates from Thomas's letter to the Windesheimer Henry of Balveren. His quaedam notabilia verba and another two works, which will be discussed later, give evidence of the same piety. The devotion and the prayers of Lubbert ten Bosch († 1398) on his deathbed were praised. He was subject to a remarkable temptation held out by the devil in the shape of John Kessel. ‘It was a bad thing for me that I had so many prayers said by the Devotionalists and that I placed so much trust in them. When I asked you to read psalteria a voice spoke from inside me: “Stercus, stercus, why do you trust in these psalms, in Mary, in Gregory, Jerome and suchlike? You must place your confidence in God. God grows angry with you that you trust so much in these things and not in Him alone. But because you are fearful and of little faith and do not do it out of malice He will forgive you, but do not do such things again.”’7

One might think oneself in the 16th century on reading such a comment on Catholic practices! On the other hand, the fact that John Kessel escaped Purgatory because of his complete renunciation of temporal things and his perseverance in his humble kitchen duties proves the merit of his good works.8 The dream referred to above

ends with a vision. The devil attempts to persuade Lubbert to trust in his own merits and in his own virtues. But this was going too far. Lubbert realised that these were promptings of the devil. He never relied on himself but trusted in God's mercy and in the prayers and merits of Mary, etc.1

John Kessel pondered anew (ruminabat) on what he heard sung in the church.2 Arnold of Schoonhoven, a friend and fellow student of Thomas a Kempis in Deventer, was already exceptionally pious as a schoolboy when he prayed the matins of the holy Virgin, assisted at mass or meditated during mass. When he had entered and was already set to copying, he prayed before beginning to write, raising up his spirit to God. He knelt before a statue and prayed every time the clock struck. He loved to enter the church before and after school and communicated with great devotion on the feast days of Christ and of the saints.3

According to the Biography of famous men of the Deventer circle Florens Radewijns was religious in his entire attitude. ‘On the street he was so lost in reflection that he did not notice when anyone greeted him.’4 ‘His attempt to improve his life and to keep himself free from all sin is of more value than feeding a hundred poor people.’5 John Brinckerinck was accustomed to make a lengthy preparation for holy Mass by meditating on the passion of Christ.6

According to Amilius van Buren, however, a thousand pious exercises are not so meritorious as one work performed from a spirit of obedience.7 Gerard Zerbolt sought his joy in Our Lord and in the sacred books.8

In his various notabilia Florens Radewijns has memorable words to say on devotion: ‘Learn to understand what you are praying and

vague thoughts are thus banished. Shrill singing disturbs the mind and quenches feeling and devotion. In praying you must ask the Lord rather for grace and mercy than for great rewards. All becomes sweetness for him who meditates on the passion of the Lord. We should perpetually direct our hearts to heaven and find our refuge in the Holy Scriptures; and often sigh that we are so carnal and lazy to seek the things of eternity. Excess of haste spoils devotion.’1 Lubbert ten Busch also had the habit of praying when the clock struck.2 Entirely according to custom the former merchant of Bruges and now cook in the Deventer house, John Kessel, filled his day with prayer, not only at matins and the other hours and at mass, but also while going about his work in the kitchen and doing messages. He meditated continually, and with him too this inward devotion was accompanied by outward forms, such as kneeling.3

This prayer and meditation had to provide the Brothers with continual spiritual sustenance so that their zeal might not weaken in the struggle against vice and the practice of virtue. When such fruits were absent then prayer was vain and not from the heart. The consuetudines mention other virtues which the Brethren must strive to attain and which were to some extent necessary if such a communal life, without monastic rule and without vows, were to succeed. These were mutual love and peace and harmony (humility and obedience already mentioned), communal possession or personal poverty, purity and sobriety.

The virtues of mutual love, poverty and sobriety need not be discussed here. The first speaks for itself, the second was Geert Groote's main endeavour, and sobriety was sufficiently evident in the foundations of Delft, Zwolle, Amersfoort, Albergen and Hulsbergen.

Obedience usually accompanied humility, since the humble Brother did not object to obeying the rector, who for his part repeatedly used his authority to humiliate a Brother in a very harsh and to our way of thinking very unpleasant manner. Florens, for instance, struck John de Vos of Heusden in the face in the presence of the newly arrived Henry Bruyn from Leiden.4 It was common at this time for the Brothers to have to wear old and worn or mended and badly fitting clothes, not only indoors but in the street. This latter was especially for people who were well known in the place so that their former friends and acquaintances would laugh at them and make fun of them. John of Kempen for example, was obliged to wear a robe with a patch

on it and shoes that were much too big.1 When the tailor had bought the coarse heavy material various brothers showed themselves willing to wear a robe made from it or even only a pair of sleeves. Florens himself gave the example and the material seems to have been so hard-wearing that Rudolf Dier in his novitiate was still wearing a gown which had once belonged to Florens. Reinier of Haarlem, a rich young man who was well dressed when he entered, was given a gown which was mended and much too short. Thus garbed, he appeared among his former friends, as he himself said ‘like a tail-less chicken.’ The young man also had first to have his beard clipped after the Carthusian fashion and later shaved off altogether.2 The poor novice who developed consumption had (it seems) to work on without a midday meal.3 John Kessel wished to sit with the poor in church and even beg for them, but Florens would not permit it.4 Similar practices also existed in Zwolle. When Henry Heussen, chaplain of the city, entered, the rector daily tried to humiliate him. He sent him out to fetch water in the river A, next to the market. The lay people who saw this took pity on him and offered to carry the water jug for him.5 He also had to fetch mustard. Abasement and humility are the ever-recurring themes in addresses and sermons, coupled with obedience which is shown by carrying out an order. On his deathbed rector Amilius of Buren exhorted the Brethren to obey his successor as the vicarius Christi; not that God speaks to us in a miraculous manner, but obey men for God's sake.6

In the practice of chastity they found it necessary to be vigilant and circumspect in their dealings with women. We have already seen how Groote's biographers gave an exaggerated picture of this caution. John Brinckerinck who, as rector of the Master Geert's house, had constant dealings with the Sisters, was extremely vigilant. When he had to hear the confession of a Sister who was confined to bed, he turned his back on the invalid. R. Dier even saw Brinckerinck speaking with a Sister, the head of the house at that, while keeping his back turned to her.7 He made a Sister throw an apple tree, which she had embraced with sensual love, into the IJssel herself.

These are symptoms of the narrow, small-minded striving after contempt for the world which grew up among the Brothers from the

very beginning and through them infected the Sisters. These stories were recounted with immense satisfaction by the chronicler Rudolf Dier and to a certain extent by James de Voecht of Utrecht around 1480. It is clear that Geert Groote's biographers write as though Groote had given the example for all this.

It was fortunate for the Brethren and for the influence of the Devotio Moderna in general that, along with their monastic practices, they also worked for their fellow men. We shall go into this later. Little is said in the consuetudines concerning communal possession, but the regulation on this point was strict and contained the core of the foundation at Zwolle. The chronicler began his account of the Zwolle house by stating that Christ and the Apostles introduced the idea of communal property and observed this rule.1 It was often prescribed by the Church, and also frequently maintained by the fathers.


Vorige Volgende

Over dit hoofdstuk/artikel

auteurs


plaatsen