Logo DBNL
The Modern Devotion (1968)

The Modern Devotion

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

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism


Vorige Volgende

Chapter Five
The Sisters of the Common Life 1383-1420.

An important group of exponents of the Modern Devotion was the Sisters of the Common Life, in a certain sense the counterparts of the Brothers. While the Brethren lived in the house of Florens Radewijns and their motherhouse in Deventer retained the name of the Florens' house, they were the Sisters of the Master Geert's house which has become as famous in the history of the Devotionalists as the Master Florens' house. Somewhat in contrast to the Brothers, who disseminated the spirit of Groote through sermons and addresses, it was they especially who absorbed this spirit and applied it in their work and in their religious life. They were to a certain extent the passive members, passive inasmuch as they did not go out and preach, but active in that by their example and personal converse, and by cooperating with the rectors, they succeeded in gaining numerous other women to their ideals. These were people from all classes of society: aristocratic young widows like Zwedera von Runen, Jutte von Ahaus and Asebe Hasenbroecks of Oldenzaal, alongside daughters of poor mothers, who had to enter the house empty-handed. The historian of the Sisters of the Common Life is hampered by the lack of documents, and this group, moreover, has been neglected by writers on the Modern Devotion. Nevertheless it is important to devote them some attention, although only as much as is necessary to know and evaluate the Modern Devotion in general. It will thus be necessary to examine the origin of the first houses in Deventer and Zwolle, to consider the dispersion of the sisters and, since the Brothers of the Common Life acted as their pastors, to establish what consequences this may have had. Finally we must consider the nature of their devotion.

The oldest house is the Master Geert's house, the paternal home of Geert Groote in the Begijnenstraat in Deventer which, in his deed of 20th September 1374, he placed at the disposal of poor women, living alone.1 He retained only a small apartment for himself. This was perhaps the first overt act by which Groote revealed to his fellow

citizens the radical change in his attitude to life. It did not mean a complete flight from the world for, apart from keeping a couple of rooms for himself, he also wished to retain the administration of the property. It was only later that this would be left to the aldermen, as also happened with the Stappenhuis and the Hospital. But this handing over of his property was by no means the founding of the Sisters of the Common Life. Groote had as yet no idea of founding a congregation of Sisters who would share table, dormitory, income and possessions and yet were not bound by the three monastic vows. It would be several years yet before Groote and his followers conceived such a plan. Neither was the founding of the congregation of Brothers envisaged yet - this idea was several years maturing.

The nature of the institution which was begun here and flourished in Geert Groote's house, is known to us from the statutes which are dated 1379. These statutes, however, have been preserved in two versions, one long and one short, the first dated on July 13th, 13791 and the other on 16th July, 1379,2 so that some examination is necessary. Both were issued with the knowledge and cooperation of the aldermen, but in the long version it is stated that Geert Groote has attached his seal to it. The long version has been preserved in the city book and the shorter was formerly also in the city archives. This situation is peculiar in the extreme. Imagine that, on July 13th 1379, a long document is drawn up in which much stress is laid on the rights of the magistrates and which is ratified by Geert Groote's seal, and three days later a much shorter document is compiled by these same magistrates which does not express so clearly the rights of the magistrates. This piece does not bear Gerard Groote's seal, but is preserved in the city archives. It is difficult to accept this, for reasons which I have given in detail in an article: De statuten van het Mr. Geertshuis te Deventer in Het Archief voor de geschiedenis van het aartsbisdom Utrecht.3 For the sake of those who are unable to read the text I shall summarize the principal arguments proving that the long text is an interpolation and must have been composed after 1379. Since this piece is represented as being published three days before the other, it is called in diplomatic language an unauthentic document.

In the first place there is one very obvious interpolation. The long

text has a fairly lengthy prohibition of the ‘blote ledicheit’, rejecting the quietism of certain German pseudo-mystics. This passage is followed by a short piece similar to the short text where it is advised ‘te schuwen’ (to fly) this ‘lediche bloetheit’. There is now no question here of the above mentioned quietism, but of the idleness which is the devil's pillow, a different concept entirely. And yet the author of the long piece links this passage with the preceding one by inserting the word ‘deze’ (this) for ‘lediche bloetheit’. This clearly reveals the interpolation.

In addition the long text mentions two companies and two ‘meysterkes’ in Groote's house, a situation which is known from other sources only to have existed later.

The decree on what was to be done with Groote's own two rooms after his death is also unacceptable for 1379, when Groote was 39 and had just commenced his career.

Finally, great emphasis is laid in the long text on the fact that the inmates of the Master Geert's house were not Beguines and did not fall under the papal condemnations which had been pronounced against some such groups. This is the main theme of the long text, whereas in the short one the Beguines are not mentioned. This now would seem to indicate a period in which the Sisters of the Common Life were under attack and that by an inquisitor. There was indeed such an attack in the years 1395-1397 and it is only then that this long document must have been compiled. The writer has carefully attributed all the decrees to Groote, by the cited reference to Groote and by making it appear as though the piece was sealed by him. It is noteworthy, however, that the short piece has only four references to rights held by Geert Groote, whereas there are eighteen in the long piece, but worded in such a way that Groote enjoys a certain right or exercises certain authority during his lifetime, but that this right or authority is transferred to the magistrates after his death. It was easy for the magistrates to determine this ca. 1396, twelve years after Groote's death. It is quite clear that they had a hand in composing the long text, but equally clear that they could not have done it alone. Apart from increasing the rights of the magistrates, the long text also comes out in defence of the Sisters, who since 1379 had ceased to be almshouse-dwellers and become Sisters of the Common Life, against unjustified attacks by slanderers, extremists and even by inquisitors. The Brothers themselves were the best informed on this point and it thus seems likely that John Brinckerinck, with the help of Gerard Zerbolt

for example, was also implicated in the compiling of this document. It would serve as a strong protection for the Sisters if it should appear from this piece that, in 1379 already, Groote had taken various measures to prevent the inmates of his house being considered as Beguines or from having contact with the members of the ‘Free Spirit.’ On the contrary he had seen to it that they rejected the eight articles which Clement V had framed against the Beguines and the 28 condemned articles of Eckhard.

However, the interpolated unauthentic document is of considerable importance for our knowledge of the Sisters of the Common Life in the first period. We can thus be said to possess three records dealing with the origin of the Sisters: Groote's disposal of his house for the benefit of pious women, dated Sept. 20th. 1374; the charter of the magistrates of Deventer of 16th July 1379 (the short text); and a piece compiled with at the very least the permission and cooperation of the magistrates and leaders of the Sisters, dating from roughly 1395-1397.

Geert Groote's intention in founding this company, insofar as he was able to obtain the cooperation of the magistrates, is expressed in the statutes of 1379 (16th July) given by Geert Groote, but drawn up with the knowledge and assistance of the aldermen.1

The house would not serve to found a new spiritual order, which in any case could not be done without the Pope's permission, but to provide a dwelling place for young women without binding them to any contract. Anyone, however, who left or was sent away, was not permitted to return. The inmates retain their lay state, are subject to secular law, and must be tried by the magistrates. Even before Groote's death the magistrates will have the right to decide who is to be admitted and who expelled, just as they had for the Stappenhuis. The inmates will not wear religious clothing, but act as lay people and very simply at that. The ‘meysterken’ must see to this. They may not demand a dowry from anyone desiring admittance but do this only in God's honour. Nor must they allow themselves to be guided by friendship. This seems to concern the magistrates who, however, are obliged to consult the ‘mistress’ and the wisest members. This holds good even for alterations to the house. The ‘mistress’ is elected annually, on the feast of St. Gregory, 12th March, by a majority vote. Her appointment must be confirmed by the magistrates. The ‘mis-

tress's’ task is to administer the communal property, including the house and its income. She can also allot to the inmates the work to be performed for the good of the community. She exercises some supervision on the women's behaviour and must try to keep the peace among them. Important matters will be referred to the magistrates. Certain points are mentioned on the grounds of which a person might be expelled from the house: this is in fact the province of the magistrates. Each inmate must live by the work of her hands and no one may beg. If anyone dies (within the house or outside it), her clothes, bed, ornaments, tools, butter and corn become house property. No one may lodge a man within the building, nor invite him as a guest, nor offer him a meal (with the exception of workmen). No one either may keep a woman in childbed, or sleep away from the house without permission. Permission is also needed for journeys outside the city. Geert Groote had earnestly impressed upon the magistrates and ‘meesterken’ that they should not give permission for journeys which might be the cause of scandal or harm to the poor people - visits to chapters were notably forbidden. Further, an anniversary Mass will be said for the parents and grandparents of Geert Groote on the feast of St. Clara (12th August) and also for Groote on the day of his death (‘op den dach daer God over hem gebiet’).

These statutes describe the Sisters not as Sisters of the Common Life, but as almshouse-dwellers. Each one has cooking pots and cleaning materials, a supply of food and evidently does her own cooking. All this must be supplied by each from her own income, earned by her own efforts. Nothing is communal, neither earnings nor possessions which in any case, with a few small exceptions, return to the family. There is no communal dormitory or dining room, no communal purse to receive the individual earnings and cover the cost of clothing. There is no communal religious exercise, nor even mention of a communal prayer, except on the anniversaries of Groote's family. The only thing which the sisters have in common is the use of the house and its upkeep. This last includes firstly the cleaning, a duty shared by all and which may be apportioned by the meesterke, and also small improvements which may be paid for from the legacy of small properties already mentioned. The administrative duties of the ‘mistress’ are confined to these points. There is thus a small communal fund to finance projects for the good of the house and perhaps other charitable works, for example the care of the sick or of Sisters who were found to be handicapped and could no longer work or even

beg. The statutes, however, make no mention of this. As far as we can gather there was neither capital nor cash for such work.

The situation had changed completely, however, when the long text was drawn up. Apart from the fact that Groote's house now contained two communities or groups, each with its own ‘mistress’ yet so linked that they formed one family, there was now also a coffer, administered by the ‘mistresses’, which was shared out among all the inmates equally, unless anything special was given or sent to two or three or to bed-ridden invalids. This was at least a comfort for the old and weak who could themselves not work or even beg. This communal coffer was filled regularly. Whatever came from the dead, i.e. the same as before but now supplemented by books, dead meat (smoked meat?) and the income from one year, being the proceeds from cows, sheep, bees, etc., less the funeral expenses and anything owed the ‘mistress’ by the deceased, was destined for the house coffer, i.e. the coffer which had existed from the beginning. Anything willed to the ‘distribution’ falls to the second coffer. If anything is willed to both without distinction it will be divided into two parts, one for the building and one for the ‘distribution.’ The same will hold good for gifts among the living if it is not clear for which coffer they are intended. They are divided equally, but in such a way that certain foodstuffs (malt, fish and meat) and fuel are immediately apportioned to the ‘distribution’ while timber, stone, chalk and iron fall at once to the building coffer.

These regulations clearly show that the idea of ‘community’ had made progress since the statutes were drawn up in 1379. Along with the coffer for the building there is now another for the benefit of all members of the community, especially the old and sick. And yet there is little community life as such, nor community of possessions. The almshouse system has not yet been broken, only a little modified to the extent that all may contribute to the communal coffer, which the ‘mistress’ may dole out as the need arises. It follows thus that the statements in the biography of John Brinckerinck are based upon truth: ‘It was not yet the custom in the houses to have everything in common besides a coffer. The Master Geertshouse was the first to introduce this and the other houses afterwards adopted it, so that they now have nothing but communal property.’1 The author does not

say when this came about, but it must have been after the unauthentic document was drawn up and before the great attacks on the Sisters of the Master Geert's house and of many other houses, especially in 1396, '97, and '98. We have seen that with the Brothers it was the foundation itself that was attacked on the grounds that the forming of a monastic community, with the sacrifice of all personal possessions and under the direction of a master, even though no vows were taken, was none the less a new form of monastic life and thus forbidden by the same law. The accent of these attacks lay however elsewhere with the Sisters. They did indeed live together, had a ‘mistress’ but with little authority except in administrative matters, and had not yet total community of possessions, table or sleeping accommodation, but they must have closely resembled Beguines and it is remarkable how much care the composers of the long text devoted to stressing that the women were not in fact Beguines, at least not of the sort assumed. To the declaration that they did not intend to found a ‘free religion’ is added: ‘nor to adopt the status of Beguines since the Beguines are prohibited by the pope and the general church under jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical law’.1 Concerning their dress it is not only stated that the Sisters may not wear monastic dress, but also that they may not dress as Beguines.2 Furthermore no one may remain in the house who holds any view ‘because of which the Beguines are prohibited.’3 As we have already observed the composition of the false text was an attempt to preserve the Sisters from various other possible accusations, including that they were supporters of the ‘Free Spirits’ and of the condemned theses of Eckhart. All this will be discussed when dealing with the Brothers' struggle for existence.

 

Let us first try to obtain some idea of the dispersion of the sisters, who thus became Sisters of the Common Life around 1398-99. John Brinckerinck, who had been appointed by the Magistrates to succeed John van de Gronde in 1392, attracted many girls to the Master Geert's house by his goodness and austerity, by his preaching and also perhaps by his former relationship with Geert Groote. Groote's house soon proved too small to contain all the aspirants. There was only room

for 16 sisters, 8 in the back premises and 8 in the stone house.1 He advised those who could not be accommodated to go and live together somewhere in the city and thus constitute the beginnings of a new foundation. He had also gathered the noble ladies together since the statutes did not allow him to admit them to the house, for they were not driven to seek lodgings through poverty. Perhaps they could come under the rule that they desired to live in (‘der herberghen mitten armen luden’) in the same house as the poor people for God's sake and from a spirit of penitence. It was partly for the sake of these ladies that he built Diepenveen in 1400, a foundation outside Deventer, occupied by sisters of the Master Geert's house and others, and for another 6 years a house for Sisters of the Common Life. It became in 1407 a convent of Regular Canonesses and was incorporated in the congregation of Windesheim. At about the same time four other Sisterhouses were founded in Deventer, the houses of Brandes, Kerstenens, Buusken and Lamme van Dyese.2 Originally they were all under the leadership of Brinckerinck, but as the number of Sisters grew the institutions required separate directors and confessors.

This can be observed most clearly in the case of Zwolle. Henry Voppenszn of Gouda, with whom we are familiar, a member of the house of Deventer and a well-known preacher, began also to preach in Zwolle while acting as rector et confessor of those widows and women who had begun their communal life a short time before. This was at the place known in the vernacular as Ter Kinderhuys, as there was not yet a house for the priests.3 This house, dedicated to St. Cecilia, was begun in 1384, according to the local historians. This does not mean to say, however, that they immediately adopted the communal life referred to by Jacob de Voecht ninety years later. Like the Master Geert's house it may have begun as a sort of almshouse or Beguine house and only introduced community of life and possessions some years later. Finally, however, it certainly became a house of Sisters of the Common Life. Its spiritual director was Henry Voppenszn of Gouda, who lived elsewhere. Henry was also confessor to the Oude Convent, a Beguine House in the Raubstreet, next to the Brother-house4 and to the Zwolle Franciscans of the Third Order whom he detached from the Franciscan monastery at Zwolle. He also had a

hand in the founding of the Sisterhouses at Kaneten, begun in 1390, Ten Bosch and Op die Maet. Henry Voppenszn died in 1410 and was succeeded as confessor by John of Haarlem († 1435), also a celebrated preacher who, however, quarrelled with the magistrate and was obliged to leave the city. Like his predecessor he served the four convents of Kinderhuis, Kaneten, Ten Bosch and Ter Maet.1 So too did his successor Liefardus, except that he already lived near the house, while he was at this time perhaps not yet a member of the Fraternity. The remarkable thing is that he was succeeded or replaced in all the houses (Kinderhuis, Oud Convent, Kaneten, Die Maet, Ten Bosch) by a separate confessor for each house. And so it remained. Five priests were needed instead of one for the Sisterhouses in Zwolle. On one occasion a secular priest was called in to help but the fraters preferred to do the work themselves and were perhaps requested by the Sisters. Later they also had the care of the houses in Wamel,2 Rossum,3 Oss,4 and sometimes other convents such as Bethlehem, outside the walls of Utrecht,5 Ten Orthen near 's-Hertogenbosch,6 St. Ursula or Brantolie in Utrecht7 and Griet.8 This is sufficient to make it clear why the house of Zwolle needed so many priests. I have already referred to their function in their own house, to the direction of the hostel and also, during the first period, to the houses which were founded from Zwolle and run by priests from this house. Hence the facts prove that in the normal course of events every cleric who entered was finally ordained unless prevented by an early death or by very special circumstances. It is also clear that the Brothers considered the pastoral care of the Sisters and the direction of their convents as an extremely important task. But there was also the danger that the motherhouse was deprived of too many of her members and that the Brothers grew accustomed to a somewhat freer life. The stern daily treadmill of prayer, meditation, long periods of work, sober meals, short sleep, obedience, humiliation, and ‘correption’ could not be maintained by the rector of a Sisterhouse, and in the outposts it even appeared difficult to persevere in poverty and community of possessions. There are signs, in the following period at least, that several of the Brethren aspired to such a post. Some may even have entered with the idea: just a few years and I'll land an easy job! All

this must have weighed heavily on the entire discipline which, according to the Consuetudines at least, should have been very strict, apart entirely from the fact that some were unable to bear the luxury and the proximity of women. The Narratio of the Zwolle house provides certain striking examples of this. Liefardus, who had long fulfilled this task, finally did such peculiar things that the Sisters were not well directed.1 He was relieved of his position. William of Gelre, confessor and director at Die Maet cooperated in the Sisters' becoming Canonesses Regular and it was certainly after this, if not because of this, that he was displaced. He remained thereafter in the world and died there.2 The same thing happened with the Sisters of Ten Bosch when Dirk van Kampen was rector there. He too became estranged from the Brothers and died in the convent of the Canonesses.3

The Brethren evidently found it difficult to approve of such a transition to the Regular state which, as is apparent here, was quite a frequent occurrence. Meanwhile the number of Sisterhouses increased. In Zutphen too a Sisterhouse was founded during John Brinckerinck's lifetime to be later joined by three others. The valley of the Yssel appeared to be the most fertile ground for these foundations, but three houses also arose in 's-Hertogenbosch, Amersfoort and Utrecht and two in Groningen and Amsterdam. This growth was so spontaneous and so sparsely documented that it is difficult to pinpoint the beginning with any certainty. It is, however, a fact that at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries such houses, congregations of women who ultimately became Sisters of the Common Life, sprang up from the ground like mushrooms. The following may be established with a fair degree of certainty. Before 1400, in addition to the houses already mentioned, congregations developed in Delft (ca 1380, later St. Agatha), in Amersfoort (ca 1380, later St. Agnes), Hoorn, Hasselt (1397), Leiden (1398, later Roomburg), Rhenen (1388, later St. Agnes), and Utrecht (1396, later St. Cecilia).4 These are certainly but a few of all those which did spring up. From the dates of foundation it may be deduced that they were the direct result of Geert Groote's preaching and the consequent revival of the spiritual life. This revival led to a new wave of contempt for the world - the

contemptus mundi which may be considered praiseworthy from a certain point of view, but which was of no especial benefit to society, particularly since these Sisters performed no social work. Nursing of the sick scarcely existed as a profession, still less the education of girls. These Sisters did work, however. They spun and wove among other things, which later aroused general disfavour and opposition. For on the one hand they were a source of cheap labour for the employers, thus antagonising the workers, while on the other they offered cheap goods on the market, which was scarcely appreciated by the manufacturers.

All this activity, however, presupposes a comparatively large number of persons in these convents, and in fact, just as there were many more Sisterhouses than Fraternities, so there were many more Sisters than Brethren. Before the end of the 14th century there were already 16 girls living in the Master Geert's house, thus exceeding the number of Brothers in the Master Florens' house. At the death of John Brinckerinck, however, in 1419, the numbers had already risen to 150, despite the foundation of Diepenveen and its population with Sisters from the Master Geert's house.1 The Sisterhouse in 's-Hertogenbosch provides even more striking figures. In the middle of the century it housed 500 Sisters, so that an annex had to be built at Vught, intended for 200 persons. This was despite the fact that Sisters had already gone from the house in 's-Hertogenbosch to found institutions in Zalt-Bommel, Rossum, Wamel and Birckt. These few figures already show that Geert Groote was justified in claiming, in a letter to the bishop dated 1383, that: ‘on the Lord's ground grew very many virginal flowers, fields of chaste widows and voluntary poor, all renunciations of the world.’2

 

Perhaps because complaints began to be heard concerning these Sisters, who attracted attention by their very numbers, and perhaps too to introduce a little order in the affairs of the Sisterhood, various eminent ecclesiastical persons began to suggest, as early as 1397-98, that these communities of Sisters should adopt an approved monastic order and transform themselves into convents. A considerable campaign was conducted to this end at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century, among the Sisters and their spirit-

ual directors. Several Sisters and some of the Brothers were persuaded to accept at least the Third Order of St. Francis. This did not of course immediately transform the Devotionalists into monastics, since people in the world could also adopt this rule, for which the three monastic vows were not required. Yet still the inclination towards the monastic life was there. The community of life, possessions and income and the similarity of the practice of virtue according to a fixed time-table and according to this Third Rule, all these were conducive to it.

An additional factor was that these persons, bound by the rule of St. Francis, soon obtained permission to take the vow of chastity, and gradually the other two vows as well. They even became obligatory for certain groups. By adopting this rule, the Sisters (and Brothers) of the Common Life, gradually and almost imperceptibly, yet according to their own wish, were transformed into monastics. The taking of the vows changed the status of the Brethren and Sisters. A shorter road to transition was the adoption of the rule of St. Augustine. This was done by the Sisters of the two Zwolle houses at Die Maat and Ten Bosch, an example later imitated by several others, including the Tertiaries, i.e., those who had adopted the Third Order of St. Francis. This step gained the disapproval of various Brothers but it is remarkable how many friends or disciples of Geert Groote laboured to this end around 1400. The adoption of this rule by several houses and their joining into one chapter seems to have been one of the important matters negotiated by Florens Radewijns in 1398 in Utrecht and Amsterdam. Others entertained a different opinion on this point.1 Around Easter of 1399, an assembly was held in Amersfoort consisting of Master William Hendrikx of Amersfoort, Master Gysbert of Amsterdam, Master Hugo of Haarlem, Master Pauwels of Medemblik, Henry of Gouda, and some others, all priests. They came to two decisions: firstly that the Brothers from Amersfoort should adopt the Third Rule of St. Francis together with the vow of chastity; secondly that the various convents which had also adopted this Third Rule and had probably first been inhabited in part by Sisters of the Common Life, should unite. In the same year already (September 1399) this group received a privilege from pope Boniface IX and, according to a letter dated 18th January 1400, the same pope gave the organization his official recognition.2 They were entitled to hold an

annual chapter with the appropriate jurisdiction, and to choose a superior-general. The Brothers and Sisters who so desired might take the vow of chastity. They were also given the right to choose a member of the Order as visitator. Several houses must have adopted the rule in 1400 and even before1, and thus been gained for the union. This movement expanded rapidly. It counted 40 to 50 houses in 1424, 70 in 1439 with a total of 3,000 monastics, and by 1470 there were no less than 82.2 These included, besides the Fraternity and Amersfoort, several famous houses of the sisters of the Common Life, like the house at IJzendoorn, the Master Henry's house at Zutphen, St. Agnes at Emmerich, St. Agnes at Amersfoort. Bethlehem in Utrecht, St. Agnes and St. Michael at Kampen, and the houses in Hasselt, Oene, Weesp, Enkhuizen and Texel.3 There were none from Deventer or Zwolle. The gentlemen who met in Amersfoort were all already active and convinced members of the Modern Devotion, according to what is said of them by Rudolf Dier4 and Thomas a Kempis.5

They were all heads of houses and, with the exception of William Hendriksz, all of Sisterhouses. William Hendricksz was rector of the Fraternity in Amersfoort which had so hospitably received Florens Radewijns and his brothers in 1398. He later became General of the Utrecht chapter founded by himself and his friends. While Florens was staying in Amersfoort he must already have entertained the idea of adopting the rule of St. Francis for his house and of taking the vow of chastity. Master Wermbold was head of the convent of St. Cecilia in Utrecht and showed himself a firm supporter of the transition and new organization. He succeeded in winning St. Agatha in Delft for the Union. None the less he retained his friendship and authority in the Deventer house where he often acted as visitator, and his relations with the Brothers continued to be most cordial, even after 1400.6 Another member of this group was Gijsbert Dou, to whom Groote made his general confession and to whom he wrote a letter in 1383.7 He too must have continued on good terms with the Brethren, since Rudolf Dier mentions him. He was at this time rector of Sisters in Amsterdam. The same must be said of Hugo Goldsmit, rector of the

Beguines in Haarlem and Paul Albertzn, rector of Sisters at Medemblik, while we are already acquainted with Henry Voppenszn of Gouda from Zwolle as head of the Brethren of the Common Life in that city and confessor of various Sisterhouses. There was no one present from Deventer, however. Florens, who had certainly been informed of the plans in 1398, held aloof, but retained his friendship with the leaders. This was nevertheless a significant change. In particular the taking of a vow (of chastity) radically altered the character of the Deventer institution. Florens must have hoped to be able to retain the Brothers. He died as early as 1400 and the Brothers did indeed firmly hold their ground.


Vorige Volgende