The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 314]

Chapter Eight
The Writings of the First Devotionalists on Spirituality and Piety

From 1384 to 1424

Spirituality, or to put it more simply, piety, may be considered as the attitude of the faithful to God and to Christ. This is not in the domain of dogma or morals, but in that of adoration, recognition, love, the desire for union, the striving after virtue, the avoidance of sin, the ways to achieve this, the exercises suitable for this end (ascesis), the paths which lead to a union with God and with Christ (mysticism), prayer, meditation, religious fervour, worship. This enumeration already shows that we are here touching upon the essential qualities of the Modern Devotionalists. They are indeed, devout, pious and certainly modern, in that they were of their own period and other than their predecessors and contemporaries. They even applied this name to themselves and were thus conscious that they possessed their own distinctive quality in the domain of piety, devotion and spirituality. They did not, however, clearly state in what this distinctive, modern quality consisted, although this spirituality, these ideals and the application thereof were constantly discussed among themselves. We have already noted this with reference to Geert Groote, and the matter was touched upon in discussing the Brothers. We mentioned that several members of the Fraternity, including Florens Radewijns and John of Kessel, wrote down their ideals in Notabilia Verba, and found these same ideals eloquently expressed in stories of Church Fathers and spiritual writings and sermons. They collected these in their notebooks, the socalled rapiaria. The study of these works is a subject in itself, a specialist branch, so to speak, the province of church historians specializing in the history of devotion. They have also devoted considerable attention already to the piety of the Modern Devotionalists, so that I can draw mainly upon their conclusions. For the rest, the question is not so easy. If the description is overly abbreviated, too compressed, this spirituality becomes a vague whole. It retains so little that is distinctive or characteristic that it strongly resembles every type of devotion that has gone before, or follows. If, on the contrary, too much stress is laid upon the

[p. 315]

characteristic qualities, then the true situation tends to become distorted. Meanwhile the ordinary communal element is so expanded that it entirely occupies the day of the ordinary Brothers or Sisters or Windesheim Canons and of the many persons in the world who came under Groote's influence.

Apart from numerous articles in journals, recent monographs have been devoted either to the history of devotion in the Netherlands in general¹ or to the leading personalities such as Geert Groote, Florens Radewijns, Gerard Zerbolt, Henry Mande, Gerlach Peters, Thomas a Kempis. These will all be mentioned here in due course. Other writers, like J.J. Mak,² D. de Man,³ W.J. Kühler⁴ and M.A. Lücker⁵ deal with general questions from the history of the Modern Devotionalists.

We have already referred to Groote's spirituality in discussing his life as revealed in his letters and works. We can thus confine ourselves here to a summary of the conclusions as formulated by K. de Beer in the fifth chapter of his book on the spirituality of Geert Groote.⁶ With Groote the essential point in orientating the spiritual life is not so much union with God as the salvation of man which, indeed, proceeds from the first. In order to attain it man must imitate the humanity of Christ, practising asceticism and entering into the Godhead, in another word, mysticism. The highest degree is perfect love towards God which accompanies the contemplation of God. This, however, is exclusively a gift of God and Groote accordingly has little to say about mysticism. The way up to God is a life of struggle, a purification from sin. Then comes the imitation of Christ which contains three elements: prayer, a rejection of worldly goods, and the practice of virtue. In his exhortation to particular virtues Groote is practical and concrete, but also something of a rigorist. He thinks, for example, that under certain circumstances venial sin can become mortal sin. He carries

1 S. Axters, Geschiedenis van de vroomheid in de Nederlanden, 4 dln. Antwerpen 1950, 196.

2 J.J. Mak, Christus bij de Moderne Devotie, O.G.E. IX (1935) 105.

3 D. de Man, Heinrich Suso en de Moderne Devotie, Nederl. archief kerkgesch. N.S. 19 (1926) 279; Meister Eckhart in Weespers Handschriften, ibid., 20 (1927) 281; Een onbekende middelnederl. vertaling van Johannes Tauler's preken, ibid., 20 (1927) 35; S.P. Wolfs O.P., Zum Thema: Seuse und die Niederlande, in: Seuse Studien, hrsg. von E. Tilthaut, Köln 1900.

4 W.J. Kühler, Johannes Brinckerinck en zijn klooster Diepenveen, Leiden 1914.

5 M.A. Lücker, Meister Eckhardt und die Devotio Moderna, Leiden 1940.

6 K.C.L.M. de Beer, Studie over de spiritualiteit van Geert Groote, Brussel, Nijmegen, 1938, 290-299.

[p. 316]

the contemptus mundi so far that he advises against marriage. He holds the monastic life in high esteem, but if it does not correspond to the proposed ideal, then it is not to be recommended. The founding of a communal life without vows was a very distinctive step, despite the example of the Bogards and the Beguines. In conclusion de Beer recognizes in the spirituality of Geert Groote four clear characteristics. It is voluntaristic, practical, directed not towards the contemplation of God, but towards the love of God in all things. Since it has as its main concern the salvation of the soul and to this end constantly applies norms of utility, this spirituality acquires an anthropocentricutilitarian character. De Beer finds that this is accompanied by a somewhat mercenary spirit which requires a return for effort involved. Groote's spirituality means also a pre-occupation with the four last things and an indifference towards temporal matters. This attitude imparts a radical character to Groote's Christian concept.

In the third place, there is the concrete aspect, the emphasis upon the practice of virtue, what might be termed the practical side. Possible dangers must be calculated in advance, an appropriate attitude decided upon. Fourthly, Groote's spirituality has a sober sense of reality; it proceeds from, and is intended for, man in this world. He takes human limitations into account and what is within man's power, but his organization of the Brethren proves that he dares to transgress the prevailing norms. I am able to accept de Beer's opinions on Groote's distaste for all empty formality,¹ since it is self-evident. The question is, however, what does Groote consider as empty formality? Certainly not every outward ceremony, for Groote's life of prayer was, according to de Beer, liturgically orientated.² That it is not the outward state but the inward disposition that counts is such a general statement that it cannot be held characteristic of Groote. Exaggeration or over-emphasis of externals is possible but so far as Groote is concerned to my mind it is going too far to say that the outward state does not matter.

De Beer gives a list of the books which Groote had copied and which he liked to possess and of the authors to whom Groote constantly refers in setting out his opinions. They comprise nearly the whole of Christian literature.³ Evidently he was not inspired by any general

1 De Beer 292.

2 Ibid., 298. In particular the lay character of Groote's spirituality is in my opinion not proved. The clerical nature of Groote's foundation is much more strongly assumed by de Beer.

3 Ibid., 249-266.

[p. 317]

dominating spirit. It is certain, however, that for his description of the monastic life and its origin, he had recourse to the Collation of John Cassian, for the Apostolate of the Monks to Jerome and to the Ascent in the Spiritual Life to Climacus, to Alan of Rijssel, to the works ascribed to St. Bernard and to Bernard himself. Bonaventure is not mentioned here or anywhere else. Groote's spirituality, moreover, springs from the past and is in no way revolutionary, despite certain personal traits. It also underwent the influence of the Carthusians, with whom he spent some years, although he later gave preference to the active side of the life.

Chief amongst Groote's followers and helpers was Florens Radewijns. He spent less time at the university than Groote¹ although his name was also entered in the Law faculty. His legal training, however, is not evident in his works. It is not known when Florens returned from the university. He will first of all have obtained a canonicate with prebend in the Cathedral of Utrecht, since Holy Orders were not required for this. It was only in 1383 that Groote sent him to Worms to be ordained. This is probably connected with the exchange of the Utrecht prebend for the vicarship of St. Paul in the Church of St. Lebuin in Deventer. Florens will not have settled in Deventer much before this. He is with Groote the co-founder of the Brethren of the Common Life and was at the head of the Devotionalist movement from Groote's death until his own, that is, from 1384 to 1400.² We have already touched upon his work in extending the Brotherhood, the number of Sisterhouses, and in founding the monasteries of Windesheim and Marienborn. Apart from a few letters³ and various Notabilia Verba⁴ two works of his have been preserved. They are referred to by their first words, namely Multum valet⁵ and Omnes, inquit artes.⁶ According to M.Th.P. van Woerkum, S.C.J., Multum valet

1 Florens Radewijns was born in Leerdam. Nothing is known of the year of his birth or of his early education, but he was sent to Prague to continue his studies and admitted to the licentiate on January 24th 1378. He must have gained his Master's degree shortly afterwards and in 1378 had himself enrolled in the Matricula facultatis juridico canonico, Mon. hist. Univ. Prag. p. 166, 180, II, p. 65.

2 Vita domini Florentii v. Thomas a Kempis, ed. M.J. Pohl, VII 116-197. v. Rudolf Dier van Muiden, ed. G. Dumbar Analecta I, 13 sq.

3 Letter to Henricus van Balveren, Pohl, VII 195-198; Busch, ed. Grube 110-111. A few other letters by Busch, Grube 43, 61.

4 Ed. Pohl, VII 198-210. Others, only partly in agreement, Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 10 (1882) 427-472.

5 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 10 (1882) 383-427, ed. by J.F. Vregt; previous ed. by H. Nolte, Freiburg, 1862.

6 Critical edition by M.Th.P. van Woerkum S.C.J. as thesis for the theological faculty of the Jesuits at Louvain ... Typed copy in the University library at Nijmegen. Consists of three parts: I. Introduction, II. Text III. Notes and Indices.

[p. 318]

was written earlier than Omnes inquit artes.¹ The first purports to be a tractatus devotus and, unlike the second, is indeed a treatise. The contents are easily summarized. The intention behind every action must of necessity be directed towards two ends: purity of heart and love of God. The first is a condition for the fulfilment of the second. Virtue must be practised to attain the first, following the via purgativa which may be fostered by reading, meditation and prayer. All three are described in detail. Especially important is the question of meditation. Various subjects for meditation are suggested and certain texts are indicated. This meditation is also helpful in curbing the desires - manual work may serve the same purpose. These desires are then more closely defined, beginning with a general classification into kind (greed, impurity, curiosity, avarice, pride). Meditation also fosters benevolence towards all manner of narrowmindedness, notably towards the Brothers in the ordinary practice of the house (in their dealings with each other, over-sensitivity towards fraternal admonition and exhortations).

The second way is the via illuminitiva, the luminous way, which is reflexion on benefits received from God. Here the writer only gives a few points and ends with suggestions for meditation; texts concerning Christ's Passion for every day of the week. It is a logically constructed treatise and the contents are repeatedly elucidated and proved by texts from the Holy Scriptures and from ancient and mediaeval writers. The textual reference is usually given. It is interesting to note that, while the via illuminitiva is given only in points, the via unitiva is not given at all. This is the way to perfection, to union with God. The works of Ruusbroec are accordingly not mentioned as source. The treatise Multum valet has this rather anti-mystical quality in common with the work Omnes inquit artes. This latter work is in reality not a treatise, but a collection of texts from the Scriptures and from pious writings, a rapiarium thus, but so linked that together they form a logical whole, as in a treatise. The editor, M.Th.P. van Woerkum, has greatly facilitated the reading and study of this work by dividing it clearly into two books, each of a few chapters, which are in turn divided into paragraphs, all with headings. He had not passed off this division as his own work, since he found indications in the text for many of his classifications. His own contributions are placed in inver-

1 van Woerkum I, 179.

[p. 319]

ted commas. That this collection of texts bears considerable resemblance to a treatise may be judged from the fact that certain chapters from the treatise Multum valet have been quite smoothly incorporated into this work. These chapters include pp. 22-41; Ch. 20, pp. 46-47, Ch. 21, p. 48, Ch. 23, p. 52, and p. 53. Van Woerkum has good grounds for considering this as a ‘collatio book,’ in other words a book used at the collatio among the Brothers on Sundays and feastdays. Someone read aloud a piece from the first book; a discussion followed, then a piece from the second book, referred to in the first, was also read aloud. This dealt with Christ's life or passion and concluded the collation. This fact greatly enhances the value of the book, since it gives us an insight not only into the devotion or spirituality of Florens Radewijns, but also into that of the first Brethren, most of whom were trained in Deventer. This collection of texts clearly shows which writers were esteemed by the Brothers. There are so many of them that I must refer to the book itself. Some works occur only once or twice, while others are quoted frequently or texts are taken from them. This agrees with the reading lists found in Groote, in an unknown canon¹ and in Busch, and which may be considered as characteristic for the Brothers. In this respect, however, some development must be assumed. In the first lists the works of the church Fathers are well represented, while the great medieval theologians occur only rarely. Only Hugo and Richard of St. Victor are found, and only one little work of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.² The German mystics and Ruusbroec are missing from all these lists, including that of Mauburn who wrote last. The speculative qualities of the first held no attraction for the Brethren, and Ruusbroec, who was highly esteemed by Groote and the Windesheimers H. Mande and G. Peters, seems to have been too elevated for the average Modern Devotionalist.³ Moreover, the objections made by Groote to some of Ruusbroec's works may have had their effect.⁴ I am in whole-hearted agreement with van Woerkum's further remarks concerning the nature of the Brethren's devotion as deduced from the above-mentioned works. Florens cherished aspirations towards the severely-ascetic, towards the practical-didactic and also towards the affecting and profound. He disapproves of purely theological learning as well as of speculative mysticism and

1 Van Woerkum, 190: see ed. Collationes Brugenses 14 (1909) 5-21.

2 I 190.

3 Ibid., 193.

4 Ibid., 194.

[p. 320]

scholasticism. In his opinion these hinder devotion and distract from the eradication of faults. This anti-intellectual inclination also persisted in later years, although the leaders had repeatedly to warn against the reading of subtle and lofty books.¹ Even Rudolf Dier desired books which incited devotion, or ‘ardent’ books.²

In this last statement we find the true literary criterion of the died-in-the-wool Modern Devotionalist. An attempt has been made to explain the Modern Devotionalists' flight from learning, as also exemplified in the Imitation of Christ, as a reaction against the oversubtle dialectic of the university learning of the time, especially against Nominalism. Although this may well have contributed in discrediting learning among the founders of the Modern Devotionalists as worldly vanity and senseless preoccupation - Geert Groote and Florens Radewijns had both studied at the university - the real cause lies deeper. It lies primarily in the short-sighted and narrow-minded view which regards as useless or superfluous all that does not immediately serve the inner devotion or purity of heart. Their dislike of learning extended to include the best representatives of Scholasticism.³ According to the continuatio scripti R. Dier, written by Peter Horn,⁴ the fourth rector of the Florens' house is purported to have said when explaining why the Brothers might only enter the library through the librarian's rooms: ‘John Vos of Heusden, the first prior of Windesheim, dissuaded the Canons from studying the books of St. Thomas and of the other recent scholastic writers, who wrote on obedience and similar matters, so that the Canons might persevere in the simplicitas.’ The Brothers were not permitted any such study. Having mentioned this interesting fact, Van Woerkum continues his characterization: ‘No distinction was thus made between real and specious learning, but only between studium devotum et morale on the one hand and studium intellectuale on the other. All scholastic learning was suspect and they followed the example of St. Francis of Assisi, whose opposition to study among his brothers was known to them from the Legend of St. Bonaventure.’⁵

‘The old traditionally safe books, comprehensible to everyone, which Florens himself read and recommended, thus continued to dominate the reading of the Modern Devotionalists even in later years, (this judgment is based on a statement by Albert of Kalcar

1 Van Woerkum, 194.

2 Ibid., 194.

3 Ibid., 194-196.

4 Dumbar, Analecta I 117.

5 v. Woerkum 197.

[p. 321]

from ca. 1485), although they will certainly not have satisfied everybody. This reading was indeed solid, but it is fairly certain that it imparted a pedestrian character to the practice of perfection among the Modern Devotionalists, since too much attention was given to restraining the body and its passions, while the positive aspect, the aspiration of the soul to God, was neglected. The zeal and energy with which the Modern Devotionalists pursued their goal of perfection deserves our admiration, but their spirituality does not appear to reveal any balanced and harmonious growth of the entire personality in the sphere of the spiritual life towards union with God. Their choice of reading in general and the difficulty in combining the divergent visions of those authors they did read into any coherent whole, already leads us to suppose that their attitude in the search for perfection was too negative. It can only be presumed, too, that they only half understood the best of their authors, such as Bernard and Bonaventure, if indeed they understood them at all. Indeed, this lack of intellectual penetration in the long run caused Groote's Devotionalist movement to shrivel and peter out.’¹

Having gained some acquaintance with the spirituality of the Devotionalists, we must now consider more closely the contents of Omnes inquit artes. In essence it resembles Multum valet. Florens has assembled and arranged the texts so that each idea is stated and elucidated with the aid of texts from devout writers. This at least holds good for the first book of Omnes inquit artes. The author Florens asks himself: What is our task? What is our duty? What is the fulfilment of God's will, sanctification. Then: What hinders us from attaining sanctification and what fight has to be fought? With reference to this latter Florens discusses the eight capital sins (gluttony, lust, covetousness, anger, spiritual sloth, vainglory, pride.) After a short passage on mystical grace, a condition for which is total detachment from self and from earthly things, he begins a positive exposition of which virtues must be practised - love of God and love of our neighbour. Among the Brothers this last must find expression in brotherly harmony, in giving and accepting fraternal reproof, and in obedience, which implies above all a renouncing of one's own will. We are already familiar with the aids to the development of virtue; study, meditation, prayer, making humble use of the spiritual leader, and manual work, to be accompanied by prayer and meditation.

1 Van Woerkum, 198-199.

[p. 322]

The second book gives the matter for meditation; the life of Christ, particularly His birth, childhood (little of the public life) and the Passion, from the Last Supper to the Resurrection. Finally, the Four Last Things (death, judgment, hell or heaven), our sins and the benefits we have received from God. To render this acceptable to the reader and to incite him to the practice of virtue, Florens sought and found his texts among numerous authors who were frequently quoted towards the end of the Middle Ages and were considered as auctoritates. These he found sometimes in anthologies and sometimes in the works of the writers themselves. He was usually able to use the real significance, but was sometimes obliged to adapt the meaning of the text slightly. Van Woerkum points out that his selection includes a great deal of monastic literature: writings by and for monks. The principal factor, however, which determines the unity of the book, is that Florens derives the theoretical basis of his asceticism from one particular author who was highly esteemed throughout the whole of the Middle Ages and had either a direct or indirect influence upon most of the other sources of the book (Libellus) (Omnes inquit artes). This author is John Cassian.

Cassian is quoted approximately 120 times in Book I of the Libellus. Perhaps a third of the text is derived from him. For several themes only or mainly texts from Cassian are introduced, in for example the nature of perfection, the role of the devil, the struggle between flesh and spirit, vices in particular and in general, brotherly harmony, obedience, prayer and spiritual direction. Thus the spiritual doctrine of Florens Radewijns in the Libellus is chiefly determined by Cassian's fund of ideas.¹

The contents of Florens' letters and of his Notabilia verba are practical applications of his general concepts and thus do not require to be further developed here. Three questions, however, demand our attention. They concern Florens' attitude to learning, his opinions on meditation, and the relationship of these two works to those of his fellow Brother, Gerard Zerbolt of Zutphen.

1 Van Woerkum, 214.

I. His attitude to learning

1.	The study of which Florens speaks in Book I, Chapter 10, p. 46 of his Libellus and, employing the same text, on p. 389 of the treatise,

[p. 323]

	refers to the hour of study in the morning after the praying of the hours. This is mentioned in the Consuetudines of Zwolle and Deventer.^1 It is announced there as the study of the Holy Scriptures. He who devotes his hour to this must begin by so directing all his study and reading that he can rid himself of faults, inculcate virtues, and put into practice what he learns. This hour of study serves also to promote devotion, fasting, penance, and manual work. He must not study simply for the sake of knowledge or learning, for Augustine tells us: ‘Understanding without action is like wisdom without fear, while fear is yet the beginning of wisdom.’ Hence it is clear - continues Florens - that all study and reading of the Holy Scriptures must tend towards love and virtue. Again he refers to Augustine. And so, according to Florens, one must not seek the lofty or the interesting passages, or the problems in the Holy Scriptures for their own sake. The entire Scripture exists for the sake of virtue.
2.	Reading must not be haphazard or superficial. The entire book must be studied, not just a folio now and then.
3.	A person must study at the appointed times (according to St. Bernard).
4.	He must write down any passage which particularly strikes him, in order to reflect upon it later (ruminare) and imprint it on his memory (Augustine).
5.	According to Bernard he must, through reading, strive to awaken love, and through love, prayer, so that he may pray while studying and reading. Florens gives this a practical application: if the study has to be interrupted for a work of charity, for instance correcting a book for communal use, then this must be done.

Finally, he leaves aside the Holy Scriptures and turns to the study of other books. The devout man must choose books capable of promoting purity of heart and love, such as books on morals and piety.²

The notabilia verba provide no supplement to these works, but only repetition. It seems to me that this study really serves as a preparation for meditation, with which at is it least, very closely connected.

1 Schoengen, 253. A. Hyma, The christian Renaissance, Grand Rapids 1924, 444.

2 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 10 (1882) 389-391.

II. Meditation

By meditation, Florens and the others understood something different from what is generally accepted today, irrespective of the

[p. 324]

method employed. Nowadays the usual idea of meditation is a period of reflection on one or more spiritual subjects, an inward prayer which includes good intentions for the day or for the future. This is the meaning of the expressions: meditation is prescribed there or not; or, he meditates daily, or she practises her meditation. Everyone understands this, although the method employed by each individual may differ. For Florens and the first Brothers, however, meditation has a more general meaning and is synonymous with ruminare. It is not, however, performed at any appointed time - there is no place reserved for it in the daily time-table. It is carried on throughout the entire day, in every free moment available; if a Brother is obliged to wait for another, or if anyone happens to be distracted at work, or even during Mass. These are moments in which the Brothers and Sisters must ruminare on the prescribed subjects. In the first place it appears from the customs of Deventer and Zwolle that the Brothers' time was occupied, at least from the time they rose in the morning until dinner, with prayers, matins and other hours, the Holy Mass, then an hour's study directly followed by manual work until dinner time.¹ According to Florens, meditation, like all works, must be directed towards the fulfilment of our task, the eradication of defects and desires and the cultivation of virtues. It then coincides with the examination of conscience.² It must sharpen the conscience. In the evening before going to bed, for example, the Brother must read something on death, judgment and or the Passion of Christ. He can fall asleep with these thoughts which he will recall on waking and so can easily put from him other vague thoughts. With such reflections then he prepares for Matins, and these same ideas can fill his heart as he works. He can speak of them with others and then he can ‘ruminate’ so that he may be aroused by such considerations to correct his faults and fear sin. Florens therefore suggests the material for meditation: namely generalis modus meditationis de morte.³ To my mind meditation for the Brothers is reflection at any moment of the day and in preparation for rest, worship or work, or at least a bringing to mind of the proposed subject.⁴ The ‘rumination’ on the life of Christ surpasses all other meditation. Item modicum ante missam si habetur tempus vel post, de morte et vilitate

1 Compare: Schoengen etc. 243-245. A. Hyma, The christian Renaissance, Grand Rapids, 1924, 444-445.

2 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 10 (1882) 392.

3 Ibid., 396-401.

4 Ibid., 453.

[p. 325]

corporis.¹ So too an aspiration requesting God's help before reading the hours, before the Deus in adjutorium.² The in corde ruminare is of more value than all good meditations (meditationes) and exercises. Florens' statement: ‘Ergo expedit, ut homo cotidie aliqua hora recordetur de hoc beneficio redemptionis sui’³ must be understood in connection with what has gone before. It certainly does not mean that an hour must be set aside for meditation, but that the mind must be turned to redemption (or other subjects) at any hour during the day. This in itself provides material for ‘rumination’ throughout the day, so that the morning is the most suitable time, for example during Mass.⁴ This, however, is not what we understand by meditation. There is no space in the morning to reserve any particular hour - the various activities dovetailed too neatly. We shall see now how we must interpret Gerard Zerbolt.⁵

1 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht 10 (1882), 441

2 Ibid., 455.

3 Ibid., 456.

4 Ibid., 423.

5 v. Woerkum (I 232-235) defends a different opinion. While recognizing that Florens' meditations constitute an exercise which must serve to keep the mind fixed upon God and perfection the whole day, not only virtualiter but, so far as possible, actualiter, he assumes in addition meditation at certain hours in the more modern sense. Here he is not distinguishing sufficiently between lectio and meditatio.