The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 244]

Chapter Four
The Task of the Brethren

Apart from prayer and the performance of other spiritual exercises, the Brethren as a community, thus not as individuals, fulfilled the following tasks. They copied and illuminated books. They preached and acted as spiritual directors to various individuals, but principally to two groups: the schoolboys and the Sisters. Thirdly they contributed in providing board and lodgings and even teaching and training for some schoolboys. It is not possible to distinguish these tasks throughout.

The Vita of Florens Radewijns and those of his disciples, written by Thomas a Kempis, have little to say concerning the Brothers' preaching in the churches. The monk evidently did not consider this important for his novices. Florens Radewijns worked easily on the consciences of his fellow men and especially upon the young, by personal contact. His influence came more from private conversations than through preaching in the churches.¹ John van de Gronde, on the other hand, was a brilliant preacher, possessing as he did a beautiful voice, excellent delivery and firm conviction. His sermons were very popular with the faithful. He preached often in Deventer during Lent, the time of frequent homilies - and also in Zwolle. One of his sermons on Good Friday lasted six hours, with a short pause for a meal.² He also heard confessions whenever he visited the Devotionalists, including those on the St. Agnietenberg. He died, however, as early as May 7th 1392, and was succeeded as pastor to the Sisters of the Master Geert's house by John Brinckerinck, who naturally also preached for the Sisters but sometimes too gave a sermon in the church at three o'clock. Thomas a Kempis was thus able to hear him twice - once a fairly long sermon on Good Friday on the Passion of Our Lord, and once at New Year on the name of Jesus.³

It appears however, that the Brother's activities in this field decreased or stopped entirely, with the exception of a few famous preachers who fall outside this period. Their sermons begin to be confined to the ‘collations’ which were held in private on Sundays

1 Pohl VII 134, 172, 176.

2 Pohl VII 219.

3 Ibid., 233, 234.

[p. 245]

and feast days after dinner and in the evenings. These, however, were more discussions than sermons. They further exercised their pastoral duties through admonitions, exhortations and instructions, also called collations, which they usually held in their houses after the church services. These were intended for the instruction of schoolboys and other good men, and were followed, as we have already said, by conversations with small groups, or even with individuals in the priest's own cell.¹ The collationes in the form of devout exhortations are only seldom mentioned in the Vitae.² When however Florens went to Amersfoort with a few of the brothers, he immediately resumed this work there.

The complete and direct pastoral care of the Sisters was in the hands of those brothers who were appointed priests and confessors to the various convents. John Brinckerinck, for example, succeeded John van de Gronde in the Master Geert's house and also served as confessor in the Sisterhouse, from ca. 1407 the convent at Diepenveen. A very famous confessor in various convents in Zwolle was brother Henry Voppenszn from Gouda. He exercised this responsible task in the houses of the Sisters of the Common Life, recently founded in Zwolle, the Kinderhuis, the Old Convent, Kanneters, later called St. Gertrude, ten Bosche and on die Maet. He died in 1410. He was followed as confessor of the aforementioned houses by John of Haarlem. This was evidently a position of trust and also a happy solution for anyone who was used to being independent. The increase in the number of Sisterhouses, which will be discussed later, laid a heavy burden upon the shoulders of the Brethren. It is one of the principal reasons why, as we have been able to confirm, the great majority of the clerici who entered had to become priests, and why the Brotherhouses became in part training institutions for priests. It was difficult, moreover, for those Brothers living outside the fraternity to maintain the strict regulations, notably those concerning communal possessions and personal poverty. Hence the caution exercised by the leaders in accepting new onera for Sisterhouses and the desire of some of the Zwolle Brethren to move to the rector's quarters attached to the convents and thus escape the strictness of the mother house. But this trend only emerges at a later period when the spirit of devotion was no longer so heroic.

1 Schoengen, Bijl. I, p. 247.

2 Pohl VII, 173, 174, 215, 321. G. Dumbar, Analecta I 22.

[p. 246]

Another group which enjoyed the especial care of the Brethren of the Common Life was that of the schoolboys, - girls' schools did not exist at this early period. It is striking how, from the very beginning, this preoccupation is revealed by the sources, and with reference to many houses. In order to appreciate fully the following particulars it is essential to know that flourishing Latin schools already existed in Deventer and Zwolle and many other Dutch and west-European towns, with individual schools emerging from time to time to particular prominence. We already saw how, during the first years of public activity, that is, before the founding of the Brethren of the Common Life, Groote was in contact with the rectors and teachers of the schools of Zwolle and Deventer and Kampen. The schools of these cities and of all the others where the Brothers came only later or not at all, existed before the founding of the Brotherhood. Although this is luce clarius and already evident from the number of students from all districts attending university, who must perforce have received previous instruction in order to be able to follow the courses - it cannot be stressed too firmly. For some seem still to hold the opinion that this education was introduced to the Netherlands by the Brethren, although such a thesis is already disproved by the Vitae of Gerard Groote and by his letters. For the Netherlands I may refer to my book, Scholen en onderwijs in Nederland gedurende de Middeleeuwen.¹ Since the village schools, which were also already long established and often conducted by the verger, taught only reading and writing, the young people from the villages, and also from those towns where the schools had not developed, went to neighbouring or more distant towns which possessed a flourishing school. In this way John Hemerken and Thomas Hemerken of Kempen and numerous other persons from Cleves, Goch and even Krefeld, went to Deventer to learn more Latin and begin dialectics in preparation for the University or for a career in religion. Even various pupils from the towns of Holland, like Henry de Bruyn from Leiden, and Rudolf Dier from Muiden travelled to Deventer. John Brinckerinck and Gerard Zerbold of Zutphen also made the journey to Deventer. In the sources these pupils are called extranei, in contrast to the intranei, the children of the city burghers. The same situation that existed in Deventer also existed in Zwolle and several other towns. From various contemporary statements it appears that the schools of Deventer and Zwolle excelled through

1 Utrecht, Antwerpen 1954.

[p. 247]

better equipment and bigger teaching staff but chiefly because they made a broader course of study possible. For besides the six classes which we later find in the gymnasia: octava (mostly preparatory), septima, sexta, quinta, quarta and tertia, they also possessed two top classes, the secunda and the prima. In Deventer Amilius of Buren, for example, soon attained the first class - in scholasticis artibus profecit, ut in brevi inter primarios unus de doctioribus fieret.¹ The housing of these boys from outside, these extranei of from 9 to 15, was perhaps an even greater problem than was the finding of lodgings for the young Arts students of between 15 and 20 in the University towns.

Colleges (bursae) were established for the university students, in which they not only enjoyed board and lodgings, but were under supervision and compelled to follow a certain timetable. As is known the university colleges absorbed a large part of the university and so divided it, since the heads of the colleges, especially in the Faculty of Arts, acquired the authority either to teach themselves or to appoint teachers. In the same way similar collegia, hostels, bursae or, as they were often called, domus pauperum were established for the boys attending a well known school. In the main these had a better effect on the boys' studies and virtues than did lodging with some godfearing man or woman, no matter how well they looked after the students. In several towns there grew up boarding houses which regularly took in a number of boys. The lodging of such boys was sometimes purely a work of charity, and sometimes a way of earning a little extra. The teaching staff especially could add to their income by taking in such boys as paying guests.² It is admirable how some people spared neither cost nor pains for these young strangers. This free lodging, however, led also to begging among the boys - an ordinary occurrence which was not considered humiliating and was to a certain extent an inevitable result of these boarding houses. A hostel was preferable in many respects, but like the university colleges, the bursae or domus pauperum or collegia also tended to absorb the school. Alongside a degree of religious instruction or exhortations to virtue in sermons and collations, the repetitor soon emerged who went over the school work in the evenings and helped with the homework. Several of the domus pauperum of the fraters tried to expand or did expand into schools. We shall give examples later.

1 Pohl, VII 282. On such top classes, R.R. Post, Scholen en onderwijs, 99 sq.

2 R.R. Post, Scholen en onderwijs, 167-174.

[p. 248]

In general such attempts at expansion were opposed by the main school and its custodians, the city magistrates. One in the 16th century in Deventer was soon suppressed but in Groningen a similar school within the hostel of the fraters survived longer and even attained a certain prominence in the 16th century.¹

All these boys who lived in boarding houses or hostels naturally attended the main school. This was the reason for their coming and in any case there was no other. This was so long before the Brotherhood of the Common Life was founded and remained so even after they established hostels.

It is very striking that from the beginning of their existence until the end, the fraters in all the foundations of which we possess sufficient knowledge interested themselves in the lot of these schoolboys, chiefly those from outside the town, but partly too in the sons of the city burghers (intranei). They found lodgings for many of the pupils of the city schools with private individuals and received others into their own houses or, subsequently, hostels. Yet, although this was a praiseworthy undertaking, they were not alone in this work and seem to have made no discoveries, nor introduced any innovations in their houses. In the Netherlands we have to rely principally on the sources for the history of the Brethren of the Common Life and thus it may appear as if they were the pioneers or at least the driving force behind this form of charitable work, which concerned both the material and spiritual welfare of the boys. According to Rudolf Dier in Florens Radewijns' time nearly every citizen of Deventer lodged a poor, pious schoolboy and gave him a bed, beer and stew for the will of God.² A tailor, Lambert of Galen, who worked for the Brothers had always eight poor scholars in his house, sent to him by the Brethren of the Florens' house, as were those in the other houses in the town. Lambert van Galen built a room for these poor lads to eat in. And yet this Lambert had almost nothing but his house and the work of his hands! Apart from these poor scholars he also took in three or four rich and paying young men. The tailor now and then spoke words of encouragement to the boys, and the priest-brothers (fratres presbiteri) of the Florens' house also ate sometimes with the poor. The noble lady Bye of Dussen constantly had eight poor pious scholars in her

1 Cf. Chapters IX and XIV.

2 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 23, 24. ‘lectisternia et potagium et tysinam.’ This did not include the midday meal.

[p. 249]

house, sent from the Florens' house. She offered beds, food and drink for the morning and in addition an evening meal (prandium) once a week. She had a very devoted helper who entered the Master Geerts' house after the death of the noble lady. Rembert, dean of St. Lebuin, proposed riding with three horses when he came to Deventer, but he changed his plans and took in six boys, sent to him by the Brethren. He provided complete board and lodgings and in addition outer clothing. They did not eat at table with the dean but there was reading aloud.¹

The provision of a midday meal seems to have been the main difficulty. In this connection Florens Radewijns annually invited twelve needy schoolboys to dine with him on the feast of St. Gregory, March 12th. Having eaten well they returned to school.² The case of Thomas a Kempis is illustrative. His elder brother John had already come to Deventer to study ten years before. He was one of the first fraters and afterwards became a canon at Windesheim. Then followed Thomas. He too went to Deventer to study, probably without money, or at least without sufficient funds, relying on the charity of the people of Deventer and of his brother's acquaintances. He thus went first to Windesheim to visit his brother and ask his advice. John sent him to Florens Radewijns, from whom a great crowd of scholars sought spiritual assistance. Florens first took him into his house, sent him to school and provided him with the necessary books. Afterwards he obtained free lodgings for him with a respectable and pious lady who took a benevolent interest in him and other scholars. Meanwhile he attended school and heard the Brethren preaching on Sundays.³ He later obtained a place in the Brothers' hostel and remained there a year, sharing room and bed with Arnold of Schoonhoven.⁴ In his case,

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, 25.

2 Pohl VII, 155.

3 Ibid., 214, 215.

4 Ibid., 318-319. The text reads in congregatione illa cum Arnoldo permansi. On the basis of the word congregatio it has been suggested that Thomas was also admitted to the Fraternity of the Brethren of the Common Life. Later at least this Fraternity is indeed called congregation, but in the foregoing passage the reference is clearly to the hostel where Arnold was staying at the time and where there was room for 20 clerics. This last is also the normal term for pupils of the school. The house is called domus antiqua, which at that time referred to the hostel. Three persons were appointed to take care of these boys. The paragraph which follows the congregatio also indicates clearly that this is not the Fraternity itself but the hostel. Thomas copies, earns a small amount and can dispose of this as he wishes. He gives it to the Brothers.

[p. 250]

thus, there was a transition. After a temporary stay with the Brothers, Thomas transfers to a private boarding house, run by a lady. After this comes the hostel. We shall see later that the various hostels run by the Brethren only admitted boys who had attained a certain age or a certain class in the school: (12 years or fifth class). This probably explains why Thomas was first sent to a boarding house.

It is clear that Thomas attended the Deventer school during this period, for he paid or at least offered school fees to the rector of the school, John Boom (de Arbore).¹ He had received this money from Florens and for this reason Boom refused to accept it. Thomas also attended church (as a little chorister, choralis, or with all the pupils) under the direction of this same John Boom who ruled school and choir with a firm hand.²

The boyhood career of Thomas a Kempis and Arnold of Schoonhoven brings us from the boarding houses and private lodgings to the hostel (bursa or domus pauperum) of the Brothers. No more than they created the boarding houses were the Brethren the first to conceive the idea of setting up colleges for schoolboys or university students. Geert Groote had certainly made the acquaintance of such institutions in Paris and had probably lived in one since he began his academic studies in Paris as a lad of 15. Moreover the theologians and canons of Deventer knew the hostel of Perugia, founded in 1362 by Cardinal Nicolas di Capoccio and destined for, among others, a divinity student from Deventer. For since that year the Deventer canons sent a young man from the city to the Umbrian capital to study theology there and to live in the hostel.³ Similar institutions also existed in non-university towns before the founding of the Brothers of the Common Life, for example in Brussels, set up on Oct. 10th, 1377 by John Serclaes.⁴ It would even appear that such hostels and bursae already existed in Deventer before the fraternity was established. We deduce this from certain remarks in the biographies of the Deventer circle, for Henry of Wesel and Godfried of Toorn from Meurs had lived together at this time in una bursa.⁵ Their case is not without interest. They had both arrived in Deventer at the same time (Cleves and Meurs are not far from each other), had attended school together

1 Pohl VII, 177.

2 Ibid., 142.

3 G. Dumbar, Het kerkelijk en wereldlijk Deventer, I 616, 620.

4 A. Miraeus-Foppens, Opera Diplomatica, I, 783.

5 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, 66.

[p. 251]

there, were contemporaries in one bursa and had both, through Florens' intervention, become teachers in the Deventer school. Henry died in 1410, the year in which Godfried became rector of the Florens' house, with a long life still in front of him († 1450). A boy from the Liège district lived at this time in quadam bursa, where he had been placed by Amilius (rector of the Florens' house), together with others who were also under Amilius' supervision.¹ It is certain that the Brothers' bursa did not remain the only one, if indeed it ever was. In 1469 the executor of Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa's will founded a similar institution in Deventer for twenty boys. It was modelled on the Brothers' hostel but was not under their direction.² This farming out of the boys to boarding houses and other lodgings was necessary at this period since the vicarage, the house in which the fraters began their communal life, offered very little space.

After the Brethrens' move in 1391 to a larger building in the Pontsteeg, twenty boys could be lodged in the old house. This was the situation when Arnold of Schoonhoven and Thomas a Kempis lived there, two of the twenty who were looked after by three lay people: a procurator, who did the buying in, a cook and a tailor.³ Both Rudolf Dier and Thomas employ clear terms to refer to both houses: there is a difference between the domus fratrum and the domus clericorum. Florens soon realized, however, that his house, the old house, domus antiqua would shortly be too small and also that the brothers would have to give up this house after his death. He thus began to build a new and bigger hostel in the Krommesteeg.⁴ This house was probably already finished in 1398 when Florens fled with a few of the Brethren to Amersfoort and returned on November 11th 1398. From henceforth this house in the Krommesteeg is called Domus nova, the new house. (See page 204). In the end the Brothers had two houses in Deventer: the Master Florens' house for the fraters and the new house for the schoolboys. Several of these latter accompanied Florens to Amersfoort, obtained lodgings there in various hospitia and visited Florens frequently. Rudolf Dier gives a somewhat broader description of the fraters intention in building the new house: Intentio autem, quare edificatur hec domus, fuit ut devoti clerici, postponentes scholas, ibidem possunt

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, 65.

2 J. Marx, Nicolaus von Cues und seine Stiftungen zu Cues und Deventer, 1906, 210ff.

3 Pohl, VII, 318.

4 Regestenlijst van het cartularium, toebehorend aan het Florenshuis en het arme klerkenhuis binnen Deventer, Verslagen omtrent 's Rijks oude archieven XLI, tweede deel (1918) 289-719, no. 40.

[p. 252]

sedere sub regimine domus domini Florencii, promerentes panem suum cum opere sacre scripture; eo quod per id temporis pauca essent loca religiosorum vel devotorum, ad que potuissent divertere.¹ He speaks only of boys who had finished their schooling or, as we saw, had left school but still lived in the new house. There they earned their keep by writing, and were under the Brothers' supervision, waiting until a place came vacant in one or other of the monasteries. This was thus a transit house for the monasteries, a sort of pro-noviciate offered by the chance of circumstance. One such boy was the priest Holto.² As we shall see from the later history of the fraternity, this activity did not however interfere with the other purpose of the house, to provide lodgings for schoolboys.

Although the distinction is clear between the two houses and between the Brothers and the city and chapter school, there is a passage in Rudolf Dier from which some, not entirely correctly, have deduced a closer link between fraters and school. This is the passage dealing with the return of the fraters from Amersfoort (11th November 1398) and the opening of the school in Deventer on 13th November. These dates suggest some connection, but other problems arise. Who attended the school? Many pious fraters and only one secular from outside? There were, however, only a few children from the city and these were the little ones. After the many deaths these few and somewhat extraordinary pupils were abnormally serious, industrious, taciturn, even admonishing each other. In this unnatural atmosphere it was only the secular pupils who made witty remarks. These scholars too obeyed Florens Radewijns and his fraters.³ Brothers going to school with other pupils and all obeying Florens! This seems a strange sort of situation. The explanation will most probably be that these Brothers and the others lived in one of the houses and attended school. It is clear enough that Florens did not teach and also that the fraters in question were not teachers either, for they calmly awaited the master's (lector) arrival in the mornings. This entire situation seems to arise from the unusual conditions prevailing. The city children did not dare to attend school yet and others perhaps had not yet returned. The boys from outside still shunned the recently infected city. The fratres set the example to speed the return to normal. The new house was to some extent adapted to the circumstances; in addition development was still possible in the management and administration.

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 39.

2 Ibid., 27.

3 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 46-47.

[p. 253]

The Brothers did not build this new house from their own funds, nor did they maintain the pupils out of their own capital or with money earned by their daily work. The dwelling of the poor scholars was sustained by the charity of the citizens of this prosperous merchant city. Both the building land and the building costs were donated by a company of devout persons and these later took in hand the extensions to the house.¹ The inmates of this house frequently received legacies and finally the house itself achieved separate legal status, so that it could for example make contracts of sale or purchase. And yet the day to day administration and the care of the boys remained in the hands of a proctor, appointed by the fraternity, with two or three assistants. Although we shall continue to pay close attention to the development of the hostels during the course of this study for the proper understanding of the institution, we shall devote some time here to defining and illustrating an especial characteristic which is permanent and also applies to other sister institutions. The Brethren did not only recruit the majority of their novices from the hostel. They also provided from the hostel numerous candidates for the monasteries or priests for the dioceses.² The statement by Rudolf Dier which we have already quoted proves that this was one of the Brothers' main aims. Such reports indeed continue right into the sixteenth century, and concern not only the institute in Deventer but also those in other cities. Thomas a Kempis already mentions that some, including himself, went from this house (he is referring to the hostel in Deventer) to the order of the Canons Regular and others received ordination.³ In a decree dated 23 August 1447 the governors of the Florens' house even declared that the hostel would be destined only for the first-mentioned category. The house would be reserved for those who were preparing for a monastic life, disponentes se ad ingressum religionis.⁴ In the same spirit, the superior of the order of the Crozier Fathers declared on September 24th, 1424 that the Brothers had provided numerous youths of good will for his order,⁵ who must have been trained in this and the other hostels. In 1471 the famous penitential preacher of the Franciscans, John Brugman, praised the

1 Cf. the explanation of the provisors of the Florens' house, 23 aug. 1447. Royal Library, The Hague, Ms. 70, Ms. 75.

2 Regestenlijst van het Cartularium, e.c. no. 27, 28, 57, 66, 45, 55, 68.

3 Pohl, VII 318, 319.

4 Hs. Kon. Bibl. 70, H 75, p. 26.

5 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht, II (1875) 272.

[p. 254]

brothers in Deventer for their care for the education of the future clergy. ‘The Brothers,’ he says, ‘give to their pupils not scholarship and philosophy but the milk of Christ and thus provided many candidates for priesthood and monastery.’¹ This Franciscan was well acquainted with the aim of the Brethrens' hostel, for a year before writing the letter in question he had addressed the boys of the hostel as future priests and monastics.² It was not long afterwards that John Butzbach came to Deventer and noted that in the Brother's hostel there was room only for those who had attained the fifth class of the city school and intended becoming monks.³

Erasmus, who will have formed his own conclusions in Deventer concerning the purpose of the hostels and could speak of the hostel in 's-Hertogenbosch from his own experience, reproached the Brothers that they exerted heavy pressure on their pupils in order to gain them for the monastic state. He says that the Dominicans and Franciscans recruited the majority of their novices from the pupils - that is from those living in the hostels.⁴ The idea that the Brothers had appointed themselves as the educators of future priests and monastics is also expressed by the bishop of Utrecht, Fredetic von Baden, in a document dated Jan. 24th, 1514: ‘the fraters have their fruits in various churches and monasteries, for they seclude the schoolboys from the wicked world, educate and preserve them in virtuous ways and in the fear of God and so render them suitable for the religious houses and churches.’⁵ Finally Josse Bade (1462-1535) (Badius Ascensius, the famous Parisian printer and publisher) relates his own experience in an edition of the works of Thomas a Kempis. He had himself lived with the brothers in Ghent. Having prefaced his remarks by saying that, according to Thomas a Kempis, the monasteries of the Carthusians, Cistercians, Benedictines and Canons Regular of St. Augustine were filled with the Brothers' pupils, he goes on to say: ‘It was the same in my time, for I have seen myself how very many from the house (domo, not schola) have entered the monasteries of the Minorites, the Observants, the Dominicans and Carmelites who have two monasteries there.’ He had also seen, from his youth, that they (the

1 J.W. Moll, Johannes Brugman en het godsdienstig leven onzer vaderen in de vijftiende eeuw, I, 1854, Bijl. p. 204, 205.

2 Archief voor Nederl. Kerkgeschiedenis I (1885) 215-216.

3 D.J. Becker, Des Joh. Butzbach Wanderbuchlein, 1912, 86-87.

4 Opus epistolarum, Allen II, p. 295.

5 Schoengen, 533.

[p. 255]

Brethren) ‘in the observance of their order and by their shining sanctity, propagated the sweet spirit of Christ to the edification of the people.’¹

For these reasons it is clear that the main aim of the Brethren in founding their hostels was not the material well-being of certain schoolboys but to provide churches and monasteries with good candidates for the priesthood and the monastery. We also saw in fact that they were not to limit their pastoral task among the pupils to a small, select group.

The existing Zwolle sources show more clearly than those of Deventer that the first Brethren in Zwolle devoted their attention to the schoolboys. The first priest sent from Deventer, Henry Voppenszn of Gouda, Brother of the Common Life, received pious schoolboys into his house.² This, as we saw, was even before the founding of the Brotherhouse proper. When the Brotherhouse under Gerard Scadde was ready, Henry Voppenzn's old house, which was first called domus vicina, was used for the young people at his request.³ John Andernach was head of it for a time⁴ and Helmich, formerly a farmer, was cook.⁵ The hospitium is mentioned in the consuetudines of Zwolle.⁶ Just as the domus antiqua in Deventer was replaced by a larger, this domus vicina also made way for a much bigger hostel. But this already goes beyond our period. It will then be seen that this hostel has exactly the same characteristics as that of Deventer. The reports of the other houses do not mention the existence of a domus pauperum or hostel - which does not mean that the boys were not being similarly cared for there. Florens put these aims into practice in Amersfoort, where there is even mention of hospicia, but it is not clear whether this refers to lodgings with private individuals or to some form of a college. They certainly did not belong to the fraters.⁷

Concern for the spiritual and temporal welfare of a section of these schoolboys brought about various contacts between the rector of the fraternity and the school rector. A friendship similar to that which grew up between Groote and John Cele and William Vroede, among

1 H. Somalius, Th. Malleoli a Kempis, opera omnia, Duaci 1635; Vita Thomae a Kempis IX, unpaginated.

2 Schoengen 12.

3 Ibid., 17.

4 Ibid., 69.

5 Ibid., 75.

6 Ibid., 262.

7 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 41-42.

[p. 256]

others, also developed between Florens Radewijns and John van de Boom, schoolrector in Deventer, and between Dirk of Herxen, rector of the Zwolle house and Livinus of Middelburg, rector of the Zwolleschool.

The schools of Deventer and Zwolle, of which the first was called the chapter school and the second the city school, were essentially the same sort of school. Both were from the outset the school of the one city parish, but had come under the control of the civic administration in the 14th and 15th centuries. This was, however, only partly true of the Deventer school; here the canons had retained certain rights in the appointment of the rector. It was accordingly called a chapter school, which had not the slightest influence on the school programme. This school, which was so closely connected with the church, was called schola publica, a public school, and as such differed from the private schools, institutions which were barely tolerated by the civic administration. The city schools were also called particular schools in contrast to the general schools, studia generalia or universities. The legal position and to a certain extent the school programme of the other city schools were the same as those of the above-mentioned schools. It is necessary to bear this in mind in order to understand the position of the Brothers regarding education. Neither in the first period discussed here, nor in the one following, did they have any influence on the administration of the city schools. They had no say either in the appointment or payment of the rector. At most they could be consulted and offer advice, and this sometimes happened, since through their hostels and pastoral duties they came to know many people, some of them very well. They could also further a person's cause, especially in the case of a teacher, a lector, for these were appointed by the rector. Rudolf Dier tells us, for example, that Florens Radewijns succeeded in persuading the rector of the Deventer school to appoint Henry of Wesel and Godfried of Mörs as teachers at the school.¹ They had not yet at this time joined the Brothers of the Common Life. During the first 80 years of their existence the Brothers nowhere - with a very brief exception in Zwolle - participated in the actual school teaching. This is evident from the fact alone that the teachers relinquished their posts as soon as they entered the fraternity. This happened at Deventer with Dirck de Gruiter,² Godfried of Toorn,³

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 66.

2 Ibid., I 3-4 and Pohl VII 188.

3 Ibid., 64.

[p. 257]

Henry of Wesel¹ and Bernard Meyer,² and in Zwolle with Henry of Herxen,³ Nicolas of Middelburg⁴ and James of Goch.⁵ During this period the leaders of the Brotherhouses did not consider it fitting that the Brothers should give lessons. The work in the school would distract them too much, divert them from the inner religious life and prevent them from giving themselves entirely to God. As late as 1485 the Zwolle chronicler expressed the unbridgeable contrast between the distracting school activities and the higher and surer spiritual life in no uncertain terms. ‘After this, inflamed by the desire to serve God more completely and rejecting the distracting activities of the teachers, he decided forcefully to consider where and how this might be accomplished in a more fitting manner and with greater fruit. And understanding that there is no safer and higher way to follow the Redeemer than that of humility, obedience, poverty and similar virtues, that is the way chosen and professed by all those in religion - although they follow this path in very different manners - he considered the way in our house to be for him the safest, the truest and the most fruitful in this life and decided to follow it.’⁶

Even when pupils left the school to enter the fraternity, the contrast between the old and new life, between the striving after knowledge and the practice of devotion, is strongly accentuated. Of his friend Amilius of Buren, for example, Thomas a Kempis wrote: ‘Thus leaving behind the school and his worldly friends, he became a humble brother and a disciple of Christ.’⁷ It is said of John Kessel: ‘he abandoned the rules of Alexander (de Villa Dei) and Donatus, and entered the school of the heavenly exercises.’⁸ Arnold of Schoonhoven left the business of the school and devoted himself entirely to spiritual studies.⁹ The Brother of the Common Life, Peter Horn, tells of Lambert van Tiel: ‘relicto studio tradidit se Domino.’¹⁰

Up to 1480 the Brothers certainly had no regard for study, nor for teaching at school, nor for theology, nor for a sound philosophical or theological training for their priests. There is no mention of any

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, 66.

2 Ibid., 143-144.

3 Schoengen 176, after having carried on his duties for a short time.

4 Ibid., 89.

5 Ibid., 202.

6 Ibid., 177.

7 Pohl VII 283.

8 Ibid., 294.

9 Ibid., 321.

10 G. Dumbar, Analecta I, 141.

[p. 258]

scholar or even of a teacher in their letters or in their lists of the dead. The Notabilia of Master Florens, or Collecta quaedam from the pious exercises of Mr. Lubbert or the Devotum exercitium, have nothing of this nature. In this respect the Brethren still maintained the standpoint of the 12th and 13th century world-forsakers. Better the simple mind than much learning without devotion.¹ It would be interesting to know, however, what learning with devotion would mean! Were learning and devotion irreconcilable? Florens did, however, consider that the Books of the Holy Scriptures should be preserved.² Lubbert ten Bosch says: ‘Approach study as if to find food for the soul.³ You must never study anything which does not refresh the soul.’ Studying to acquire knowledge or to teach others or for any other reason does not nourish the soul!⁴ Is this attitude not in complete contrast to what is proclaimed by the Humanists of the 15th and 16th centuries?

Although an examination of the writings of the Brethren would be appropriate here in order to throw more light upon their spirituality, it seems to me preferable first to consider more closely the other two institutions, the Sisters of the Common Life and the congregation of Windesheim. We could then discuss in this section the writers among the Brothers and the Windesheimers during this first period.

1 Pohl VII, 207.

2 Ibid., 204.

3 Ibid., 265.

4 Ibid., 266.