The Modern Devotion

Confrontation with Reformation and Humanism

[p. 343]

Chapter Nine
The Brethren of the Common Life From 1420 to 1480/85

Further dispersion.¹ Closer definition of their task. Erasmus among the Brothers.

In the preceding chapter, we described the origin and development of the congregation of the Brethren of the Common Life, together with that of the Sisters and of the Windesheim chapter. We paid particular attention to the character, aims, task, life and religious experience of the members of these three foundations. This chapter now, will trace the further development and especially the dispersion of the fraters. We shall examine whether any change took place in their character, aims, language, life and religious experience. We shall consider this new period as extending up to 1480-85, when the first Humanists made their appearance in the Devotionalists' field of activity. It was also around this time that certain houses had their histories written down and that the section of the Brothers in central Germany suddenly received the expansion with a somewhat different character. In addition, the competition of the printers must have made itself felt, or at least have begun to be feared around 1480.

The Fraternity of St. Gregory in Deventer had already embarked upon a house chronicle before 1480 and may thus have set the example for the other houses. These chronicles consisted mainly of short biographies of the deceased Brothers, arranged according to the year of death and sometimes preceded by the biography of the rector. In Deventer this was also placed according to the year of death. During this period the Deventer house had only two rectors, Godfried of Toorn (1410-1450) and Egbert ter Beek (1450-1483).² As is usual with this sort of exercise, these biographical notices always bore the

1 Whenever only little is known of certain German houses after 1485, then it is mentioned also in this chapter.

2 Scriptum Rudolf Dier de Muden. ed. G. Dumbar, Analecta I Deventer 1719, 1-113; Continuatio composita per Petrum Hoorn, 114-162, and the Vita Egberti ter Beek, 162-178; Vita Domini Johannis Hattem 179-223. Then follows a source of a different kind: Registrum bonorum domus D. Florencii, 224-244.

[p. 344]

character of a laudatio, a eulogy on the activities and virtues of the deceased. They must thus be read and used with a certain amount of scepticism. They do however provide many significant facts which cannot be doubted and also reveal the ideals which inspired the writers. These may be considered as the true characteristics of the Brotherhood.

There is no record of the number of inmates of the Deventer house during this period. They were certainly not very numerous, but still consisted of priests who are in charge, clerici who may reasonably be considered as future priests, and two or three laymen who performed the duties of cook, tailor and baker. There is no instance of a layman becoming a cleric. Anyone who entered as a laybrother continued in this position until his death. This held good no matter what his standard of education. Mathias Gerardzoon of Zutphen (ob. 1459) for example, was so familiar with the Holy Scriptures from reading and meditation ‘that he seemed not a layman but a cleric,’¹ and Paul Sceper from Kirtzich (Gulik) († 1466) who had attended school in Deventer and entered the Fraternity as a pupil of the second highest class (secundarius) worked there as a cook until his death. He had thus at least one year more of study than the boys who went from school to the university (tertiani), as Erasmus hoped to do as a pupil of the third class. In fact the syllabus of the second and first classes resembled that of the Arts Faculty in the university. This Brother thus had a broader school knowledge than most of the clerics and priests.²

The assumption that there were a great number of fraters is contradicted by the account of the deceased Brothers between the years 1428 and 1473. During this period 25 persons died, roughly one every two years, and this at a time when the plague was constantly recurring. In 1429 alone it accounted for 5 fraters.³ We may compare this figure with the fifty deaths suffered by the Sisters of the Common Life in Deventer in the same year.⁴ Of the Brothers in question 6 were priests, 12 clerics and 7 laymen. The death figure for the lay brothers was comparatively higher. The ratio of 6 priests and 12 clerics may be said to accord with our earlier report that the community probably consisted of at least 4 priests and 12 clerics. The data available are not sufficient to prove that those who entered as clerics usually became priests after a time, as I showed for the Zwolle house and will prove

1 Dumbar, Analecta I 126.

2 Ibid., 139.

3 Ibid., 78-81.

4 Ibid., 124, 137.

[p. 345]

for a later period. We may, however, recall that according to the Chronicle, such a promotion was considered normal (see pg. 206). Paul Sceper, who had received a good preliminary education, but who did not aspire to the priesthood, was asked if he did not resent the fact that younger candidates were elevated to the priesthood year after year.¹ One could also cite John of Esch († 1453) who rejoiced shortly before his death that he had continued in the lowly state of clericus, while his uncle, the deacon of St. Severinus of Cologne, had done his best to have him ordained priest and furnish him with sufficient prebends.² Priests were needed for the direction of the house, for the schoolboys' hostel, for the pastoral care of the schoolgoing youth and to be directors of the Sisterhouses. There were several of these in Deventer and Zutphen and they were served by the Brothers.

Deventer was little implicated in this progressive expansion. The house in Delft, which had been founded from Deventer, and where a large section of the Brothers had adopted the Rule of St. Francis in 1418, transferring to the stricter one of St. Augustine in 1433, was given a fresh chance in 1435 when the Regulars vacated the house and left the buildings to the fraters. It was from Zwolle however, and not from Deventer, that they received assistance, and even this aid was not yet effective.³ The exile of the fraters and their stay in Zutphen from 1426 to 1432, did not lead to a new foundation in that city, as did the sojourn of the Zwolle fraters in Doesburg. Shortly after the return to Deventer, however, news came that Henry Wellens of Sichem, chaplain of the Church of St. Peter in Louvain, had bequeathed the hospice he had founded to the Brothers (he died on Feb. 25th, 1433) for them to found a community. That very year the Deventer Brothers Gillis Walram and Werner of Zutphen left for Louvain. The first became rector⁴ and the second left the fraternity shortly before.⁵ On their journey to Liège, where John of Hattem, later procurator of Deventer, was to be ordained priest, he and Peter of Amsterdam visited their colleagues in Louvain. This was probably around 1435 when the Utrecht schism had not yet been completely resolved. It is possible that Peter of Amsterdam was also on his way to be ordained, since he is already called Dominus here and is later mentioned as a priest.⁶ In any case they were hospitably received in Louvain. Shortly afterwards

1 Dumbar, 139. Analecta I

2 Ibid., 121.

3 Schoengen 19.

4 Dumbar, Analecta I, 182.

5 Ibid., 227.

6 Ibid., 182, 227.

[p. 346]

however, Gillis Walram left the ranks of the Brethren of the Common Life - contemptible in the eyes of men - in quest of a more respected state within the Church. He became a Canon Regular. In 1447 the house was incorporated in the Windesheim union of monasteries as Vallis sancti Martini.¹ The Brethren from Deventer were not very fortunate with their foundations. A section of the Brothers from Amersfoort and Delft and all those from Louvain became monastics. Several years later the rector, Egbert van Beek, (1435-1487) attempted to establish a new foundation at Emmerich through his blood relative Dirk ter Wiel. After much effort and many difficulties he succeeded.² Nevertheless, the Deventer house remained a focal point in that it recruited its novices from a wide region. In this the city school was a great attraction. The Brothers came from Leyden, Amsterdam, Muiden, Hoorn, Arnhem and Zutphen, but also from Flanders, Brabant, the Rhineland, the Liège region and to a lesser extent from the surrounding districts. They feared that the relatives of these latter would cause too much trouble for the house. Egbert ter Beek was an exception who was only admitted after long deliberation. What an asset he turned out to be!

Throughout the whole of the 15th century, the school of the chapter church in the city of Deventer comprised more classes than those of the other cities, with the possible exception of Zwolle. Besides the normal classes of octava, septima, sexta, quinta, quarta and tertia, it had also secunda and prima. A longer study was possible than elsewhere, and students were better prepared either for the university or for a task in church or society. Henry Donkels from Tongeren for example, came to Deventer causa studii, obtained lodgings in the fraters' hostel and entered the Fraternity at the age of 21.³ Rudolf Dier from Muiden too, came to Deventer in Florens' time as a boy of 13, and having completed school (completo scholasticali studio) he was accepted as a novice by the Brothers and finally became a member of the Fraternity.⁴ Paul Sceper from Kirtzich in Gulik attended the school of Deventer and joined the congregation as a pupil of the second class.⁵

1 J. Molani, Historiae Lovaniensium libri XIV, ed. F.X. de Ram I, 1861, 284, 293. Edw. van Even, Louvain dans le passé et dans le présent. Louvain 1895, 483, 484. Louvain Archives MSS 4338, 4234, J. Lourdaux, De Moderne Devotie te Leuven O.G.E. 17 (1963) 5, 402.

2 Dumbar, Analecta I, 175. See further p. 415.

3 Ibid., 124.

4 Ibid., 127.

5 Ibid., 139.

[p. 347]

There was also Bernard Meyer who was born in Deventer, attended the school and later became a teacher. It was only then that he entered the congregation, was ordained priest as a man of 31 and died two years later in 1467. To judge from the great humiliations imposed upon him and his task of scriptorarius in the house, he must have abandoned his teaching career on entering.¹ We must also assume that John Willemssen of Kempen in the Cologne region also attended the Deventer school. He worked as a brother for six and a half years, attending guests and the sick, and was ordained priest in the last year of his life.² This was certainly the case with Lambert from Hoey, who first lodged in the Brothers' hostel before he was accepted into the Fraternity³ and it is also stated clearly of Peter Horn, the famous biographer of Geert Groote. He went first to the school at Hoorn where he received instruction in the elementary subjects, probably reading and writing (puerilia) and singing. He then came to Deventer and went through all the classes including the first (primarius factus). He entered the Fraternity as a youth of 17.⁴ During his schooldays he lodged in the hostel.⁵ He became a priest, but the year of his ordination has not been recorded. Typical of the existing situation is the history of the youth of Egbert of Beek, rector from 1450 to 1483. He was born in Wyhe, twenty kilometres north of Deventer, and went to school in Deventer instead of Zwolle which would have been nearer. He did not live with the fraters but with an aunt, a widow woman. He did however, attend the collations at the Brotherhouse, confessed there at certain times, and had his hair close-cropped like the schoolboys who lived in the hostel. This particularly scandalised one member of the family who went so far as to call him a Lollard. When the father heard that his son was progressing well with his school work, he wanted to send him to Cologne, to gain his Master's degree and perhaps even more exalted titles which would help to further his ecclesiastical or temporal career. Egbert, however, having finished school, went his own way. He first considered Windesheim, but finally chose the Brothers, being admitted to the noviciate in 1438. His father's offers to found a prebend for him if he would join the secular clergy, were of no avail. Egbert stayed with the Brothers, thereby forfeiting his academic studies in Cologne.⁶ After he had spent seven years in the Brotherhouse, i.e., in 1445, he was ordained priest at the command of

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, 143-145.

2 Ibid., 146-147.

3 Ibid., 147.

4 Ibid., 149.

5 Ibid., 157.

6 Ibid., 162-165.

[p. 348]

the rector and the Brothers. Five years later he was elected rector. John of Hattem, born in Wilsem near Hattem, south of Zwolle, received his first school education at Doesburg, where he reached the grammaticales congruitates, the principles of Latin, as was usual in the schools of such smaller places. The biographers do not say where he went to school after this, but they do mention that, having completed his studies (completo itaque studio) he was accepted as a boy of 16 by the Brothers of Deventer. At this time, between 1426 and 1432, they were living in exile in Zutphen. The authors praise him for his confidence in the fraters during their exile.¹ At first he had to act as verger in their own chapel but later, probably around 1435, he was chosen by the Brethren, and ordered by the rector, to become a priest. As we have already said, he was ordained in Liège.² At this time he must have been about 25 years of age. He later obtained the position of procurator.

These details concerning persons of no great historical significance clearly show that, like their predecessors in the first period, they underwent no theological training for the priesthood. They were well grounded in Latin and logic at school, and a few of them had acquired the rudiments of philosophy in the secunda or prima. By reading the Holy Scriptures and by meditation they were able to absorb various ascetic ideas, but they had never taken a course in theology. Anything they knew they had had to learn themselves in the few hours allotted them for free study. This study held no attraction for them. The word ‘theologian’ only occurs once in the script (scriptum) edited by Dumbar, in the life of Peter of Horn. It is said that not only very learned theologians but even lawyers were astounded at his knowledge of their subjects.³ Far be it from me to deny that gifted persons may achieve a great deal through self study. These, however, remain the exceptions. The Brothers, though, might be said to have made a system of it. Such statements could be considered as a eulogy; this often occurs in these small communities, where the members have only themselves for comparison. Peter of Horn approvingly mentions that rector Godfried of Toorn recalled the judgment of the prior John Vos of Windesheim, who was accustomed to dissuade his canons from studying the books of St. Thomas Aquinas and other modern scholastics dealing with obedience and similar questions. They would have to persevere in simplicity (simplicitas).⁴ After the death of Florens

1 Dumbar Analecta I, 179-180.

2 Ibid., 181, see above p. 345.

3 Ibid., 154.

4 Ibid., 117.

[p. 349]

Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt, the Brothers of Deventer or indeed of most of the other houses, never published another work, except perhaps the house chronicles with the brief biographies of the Brothers after their death.

The Brothers' regular manual work still consisted in the copying of books. A large part of the day was devoted to this, and even the rector and the procurator did their part. This activity is mentioned so often in the chronicles that there is no need for me to offer illustrations here. It was also, for the Brothers, a means of earning their daily bread, although towards the end of the period at least, the competition of the printing press must have loomed ahead. The biographers, however, do not mention this cloud on the horizon. In the meanwhile, the Brothers had fallen upon better times. The register of the property of the Florens' house shows that the rector was in a position to buy various landed properties, interests and tithes of which the Brothers enjoyed the revenue. They also profited from the legacies and ecclesiastical foundations, bequeathed or established by various benefactors and friends. From the money brought by the Brothers on entering and from bequests, the rector was able to buy up houses and gardens to round off the terrain of the Brotherhouse, and to enlarge and restore the existing house. Towards the end of this period the house gave the impression of a prosperous establishment. The Brothers continued to live soberly, but were no longer compelled to do so by poverty.

The chronicle frequently refers in plain terms to the other task of the Brothers, that is, the care of the schoolboys. A distinction must be made here between the boys who lived in the new house, i.e., the fraters' hostel, and those who occasionally visited the fraters, either to hear some address, or to have a personal conversation with one of the Brothers, or to go to confession. Since this was one of the Brothers' most important tasks, which has often been misinterpreted, it is perhaps useful to give the relevant data here. Towards the end of his life, John Groda of Flanders, priest († 1443), was appointed ‘to direct the pious schoolboys who lived in the new house.’ He lived with them, put up with their ways patiently, and looked after them well.¹ During this same period Theodoricus of Stamheyn († 1443) was cook there for seven years (ad serviendum devotis clericis in coquina). It was only afterwards that he went to work in the Brotherhouse.²

1 Dumbar, Analecta, 84.

2 Ibid., 85.

[p. 350]

Helyas Sybrands of Hoorn († 1450), a lay brother, also served the boys (clericis et scholaribus) in the new house.¹ At the age of 23, Lambert of Tielt (of Flanders, † 1466) abandoned his studies and offered himself to the Lord and to the Brothers, in order to serve the schoolboys in the new house, by instructing them in school subjects and good morals (instituendo ipsos in scholasticalibus et bonis moribus) and by providing them with the necessary bedding and other things.² He cared for these boys like a mother, and especially for the poor and sick. He also maintained discipline, however, and was pained if they did not behave as he wished.³ There is thus plainly a dwelling, and the instituere in scholasticalibus entrusted to this one man refers to the repetition of what the boys had learned in school. This is clearly stated in the statutes of the bursa cusana. As in the Brothers' hostel, the rector of this institution had to see to it that the boys were on time for their lessons in the city school, go over their lessons after school with the bursarii and instruct them in good learning and virtues.⁴ Bernard Meyer from Deventer († 1467) who had taught in the school at Deventer and gave up this position on joining the Fraternity, was not appointed to the hostel but became head of the scriptorium.⁵ Peter of Horn lived in the new house while he was still going to school.⁶ He retained a great interest in young people, whom he admonished in public addresses or personal conversation, and whose confessions he heard.⁷ As we already saw, Egbert ter Beek did not live with the fraters, but on his aunt's urging, visited the Brotherhouse, in order to hear the Brothers speak and to go to confession regularly.⁸ John of Hattem, procurator († 1485) heard the schoolboys' confessions during the whole of Lent and for the principal feastdays.⁹ He was much sought after as a confessor and nearly all the schoolboys, young and old, went to him. He often addressed the boys too, sometimes in his room, and they went away cheered and comforted.¹⁰ Was Erasmus one of them? He attended the Deventer school from 1478 to 1483 and it would be strange if he had

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, 87.

2 Ibid., 141-142.

3 Ibid., 142.

4 Statutes, clause 3. ed. J. Marx, Nicolaus von Cues und seine Stiftungen zu Cues und Deventer, 1906, 240.

5 Dumbar Analecta I 143-144.

6 Ibid., 157.

7 Ibid., 157-158.

8 Ibid., 162.

9 Ibid., 183.

10 Ibid., 184.

[p. 351]

acted differently from the majority of the boys. He is not mentioned, however, in the sources. He himself appears to have mentioned the Brothers of Deventer once in a work dated 1528:¹ ‘Educabar apud hos (i.e. the Brethren of the Common Life) Daventurii nondum egressus annum decimum quintum.’ To my mind, however, this refers to Erasmus' stay with the Brothers in 's-Hertogenbosch. This agrees better with the age. Daventurii looks more like Deventer (Daventria) than like 's-Hertogenbosch, but still it is not the normal word.²

The Lives (Vitae) often mention the pupils of the school, but never the school itself, nor the teaching. Nor do they mention that John Xynthen or Zynten taught in the school towards the end of this period, although this is stated in other sources. This Brother is only named in the Register for the year 1479, when the rector bought an annuity of 100 guilders from the city of Deventer with the money brought in by ten of the Brothers, including John Zynten.³ He is the last mentioned and will not have entered much before 1479. One must remember, however, that the biographers dealt only with the life of rector Egbert ter Beek and of the procurator John of Hattem. They are not concerned with the Brothers who died after 1479. In any case, this activity on the part of John Zynten (or Xynthen) ushers in a new period.

It is characteristic for the ecclesiastical concept and religious and devout practices of the Deventer Brothers, that, during the Utrecht schism, they firmly ranged themselves on the side of bishop Zweder of Culemborg, who had been appointed by the pope. For their obedience to the Church law they suffered all manner of torments and finally exile. The Brothers of Deventer were not alone in this. They had the support of the Sisters, the Brothers of Zwolle, and the Canons of the Overijssel monasteries of Windesheim: Windesheim itself, Bethlehem in Zwolle and St. Agnietenberg in the neighbourhood. The so-called Utrecht schism originated in a political difference, a quarrel over succession in the region: the Sticht. However, since the head of this little state was also bishop of a larger district, the diocese of Utrecht, this political difference acquired ecclesiastical implications, for the canons of Utrecht and in the last resort the pope, decided who would have the position. The parties revealed themselves very quickly

1 L.B. I 921-922 A.

2 Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 26 (1964) 499.

3 Dumbar, Analecta I 237.

[p. 352]

after the death of the previous bishop, Frederic of Blankenheim, who died on October 9th, 1423. A remarkable feature is the activity shown by the people of Overijssel, the cities of Deventer, Zwolle and Kampen, on behalf of their candidate Rudolf of Diepholt. Despite the fact that he had not received a sufficient majority at the election, they supported him when no decision was forthcoming from Rome. In the autumn of 1424 they placed the castles and manor-houses and incomes from the land of Overijssel at the disposal of their candidate Rudolf. They were thus in a hostile position towards the bishop appointed by the pope, Zweder of Culemborg. He must have seemed to some the stronger candidate, since to a certain extent he enjoyed the support of duke Philip the Good of Burgundv. The people of Overijssel, however, did not falter in their attitude, not even when, in 1425, the pope excommunicated the opponents of Zweder and the adherents of Rudolf and placed the region of Overijssel under the interdict. In the opinion of the Brothers, monastics, and various members of the clergy, they might have no contact with the excommunicated, and they ceased to hold public religious ceremonies. Several of them left Overijssel and went to Gelre, and the Brothers and other monastics continued to hold their religious functions behind closed doors. This, however, was not good enough for the administrators of Deventer and Zwolle and of the province. They wished to compel the clergy to administer the sacraments, to provide church funerals and to hold religious ceremonies as in normal times. Several of the secular priests ignored the interdict and a few of the Deventer canons continued to sing the office openly. The majority of the Regulars, however, together with some of the secular clergy, the parish priest of Deventer, the guardian of the Franciscans and the priest of the church of St. Nicolas, left the district. Around Easter of 1426 (March 31st), the magistrates began to harass the rector and the fraters. At length they agreed to allow the fraters to depart with a few books and other necessities, leaving two of their number behind to guard the house. After a certain amount of preparation, the fraters left the city on April 22, 1426, and made for Zutphen, where they were admitted after some difficulties. They remained in Zutphen for 6 years, but had to change house four times.¹ The Zwolle brothers had already departed somewhat earlier, on Good Friday, March 29th 1426. They went first to Hulsbergen and later to Doesburg where they finally founded a new

1 Dumbar, Analecta I 75.

[p. 353]

Brotherhouse. This continued in existence when the Zwolle Brothers were able to return home in 1432.¹ The inmates of the five Sisterhouses in Deventer left the city around June 24th 1426. Those from the Master Geert's house found somewhere to live in Arnhem, though not without difficulty and expense. Those from the Busken house went to Lochem and founded another Sisterhouse in Wamel during their exile. The Sisters from the other three Deventer houses found lodgings in Zutphen; one with the Sisters there, in the house of Rondéél, the others in private houses. ‘Other Devotionalists too,’ continues the narrative of Dier of Muiden, ‘were banished for the same reasons, because they wanted to obey the Apostolic See.’² The canons from Windesheim were taken in by the monastery of their order in Noordhorn. They were subsequently offered a place in Bredevoort, where they founded a new monastery which continued to flourish even after their departure. The Regulars of the Zwolle monastery of Bethlehem even travelled as far as Koblenz, where they established a new foundation in a former Cistercian monastery. This also continued to flourish. Finally, the Canons Regular of the St. Agnietenberg, Thomas a Kempis's monastery, journeyed to the Ludingakerke in Friesland. They reformed it and made it into a solemne monasterium. Meanwhile John of Haarlem, who had been rector at Deventer from 1404 to 1410 and afterwards director of the Zwolle Sisterhouses, founded a new Sisterhouse at Elten. It was probably composed of the Sisters who had fled from Zwolle, although this is not expressly stated.³ Rudolf Dier exclaims triumphantly: ‘The devil wished to eradicate the Devotion from the province of Utrecht, where it had flourished since the days of Geert Groote, but the danger was transformed into gain.’⁴ In 1432 all, with the exception of the new foundations, returned to their former houses.

Although this exile may be viewed merely as an episode in the history of the Devotionalists, it characterizes the movement as Ultramontanist. They wished to obey the pope; the Brothers as much as the monastics.

A few further remarks concerning the Devotion will not be out of place here. The priest Henry de Bruijn, who died in Zutphen in 1429, read the Holy Scriptures and prayed the canonical hours up to the time of his death.⁵ The third rector, Godfried van Toorn, of Moers, is

1 Schoengen 84-86.

2 Dumbar, Analecta I 76.

3 Ibid., 76.

4 Ibid., 76-77.

5 Ibid., 79.

[p. 354]

said to have loved books and relics.¹ This same rector attributed the faint-heartedness and lack of progress of the fraters to the fact that they said their prayers carelessly and did not prepare sufficiently well for Holy Communion.² He taught the boys to raise their minds to God through short prayers.³ Henry Donkels, stricken by the plague and with the prospect of death before him, visited the churches of Deventer and walked praying around the altars.⁴ This plainly refers to the visiting of seven churches or altars, a practice to which an indulgence was attached. Rudolf Dier carefully prepared himself for reading his breviary, read it with pious attention, pronouncing everything plainly and retaining all the ceremonies ‘as he had been wont to do formerly in our chapel.’⁵ Until his old age he always remained kneeling during High Mass.⁶ According to the practice laid down by the first fraters, he lost himself in the passion of Christ, through prayer and meditation, whenever he was to say Mass.⁷ During his last days he tried to say his hours as well as possible and had himself carried into the chapel on a chair in order to hear Mass.⁸ The well educated lay brother, Paul Sceper of Kirtzich, never missed the hours and addresses of the fraters and repeatedly exclaimed in the vernacular ‘Oh that I might be in heaven.’⁹ Peter of Horn, Geert Groote's biographer, also read the hours with the fraters, standing erect and in a fitting attitude. He read them with great care and rebuked one of the Brothers for performing this duty somewhat lazily.¹⁰ When Egbert ter Beek was rector he gladly prayed the hours with the Brothers, and it is said of him that he read the canonical hours, devoutly, precisely and audibly, even when he was praying his breviary in private.¹¹ According to the biographer, John of Hattem, the procurator who died in 1485 and whose life is the last to be recounted in the Deventer scripta, prayed the entire day. Apart from the considerable amount of work he performed, he prayed the vigil for the deceased or at least three lessons on work days and nine on feastdays. He also said the rosary every Monday.¹²

This should suffice to show that the fraters of Deventer had nothing against oral prayers and the outward forms of worship or devotion. They attempted, however, to perform them respectfully and atten-

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, 116-117.

2 Ibid., 117-118.

3 Ibid., 118.

4 Ibid., 124.

5 Ibid., 133.

6 Ibid., 133.

7 Ibid., 134.

8 Ibid., 136.

9 Ibid., 139-141.

10 Ibid., 151-152.

11 Ibid., 169, 170.

12 Ibid., 197-198.

[p. 355]

tively, conscious of what they were doing or were about to do, through the renewal of their good intention, through short ejaculations, through ‘ruminating’ on the matter for meditation. It is indeed remarkable that the three persons whose life is described in somewhat greater detail, Peter of Horn, Egbert ter Beek and John of Hattem, all placed great emphasis upon maintaining the customs (consuetudines) of the house which regulated the religious exercises, work and meal times. Considerable stress was also laid, however, upon meditation, prayer, pondering on the aim of life, etc.¹ These leaders and the older Brothers evidently found it necessary around 1480 to stress the customs of the house, or at least the biographers thought it useful to mention this. It would be in no way remarkable if other ideas on discipline, work and devotion should have arisen a hundred years after the foundation, or that the older members should oppose them. Here too it was evidently no easy task to maintain the former zeal, as Egbert ter Beek had discovered on his journeys of visitation. From time to time he was obliged to relieve rectors and confessors of Sisterhouses of their office, sometimes in the face of opposition. Here the chronicler names Leiffard, confessor in the various Zwolle Sisterhouses, who will be mentioned again later, and a rector of the Brotherhouse at Groningen.² There is nothing strange or surprising about this. What is remarkable is that the biographers were still able to detect the old virtues in several of the Brothers: the simplicity and humility, enduring great humiliations including blows on the cheek from the rector.³ Godfried of Toorn (1410-1450) seems to have been very free with these, more so at least than Egbert ter Beek, who had been so shocked to witness such an incident on the first day of his life as a Brother. The biographers were also able to note the wearing of remarkably old or ragged clothing in public⁴ and also chastity accompanied by considerable reserve and caution in dealings with women. A love of poverty still persisted, expressing itself in loving admonitions, and also zeal in work. And yet Egbert ter Beek, in a plea on behalf of the Sisters, dared to speak of a cooling off the old love.⁵ Egbert had seen beyond the walls of his own house. On the orders of the colloquium Zwollense - a sort of general chapter of the Brotherhouses in the west, of which more will be said later - he had visited the houses of Hulsbergen and Doesburg, and those of

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, pp. 155, 156, 168, 207, 215, 221.

2 Ibid., 174.

3 Ibid., 119, 164.

4 Ibid., 144.

5 Ibid., 172.

[p. 356]

Flanders, Holland, Gelre and of the diocese of Utrecht, in the company of Albert of Calcar, rector of the Fraternity at Zwolle. This is the only report in these biographies concerning the cooperation of the Brothers of Deventer with those of other houses. Despite the setting up of the Zwolle colloquium, the proximity of fellow-Brothers in Hulsbergen, Zwolle and of the related Regulars in Windesheim, Zwolle (Bethlehem) and near that city (St. Agnietenberg) the fraters lived to themselves, within their house, within their cells. They did not beg, they looked after a certain group of young people, and yet they were not popular. Admittedly they had a few friends who visited them, sometimes came to live with them as commensales, made over their property to the Brothers, left them legacies or left money for memorials or Masses. Yet the institution itself remained an anomaly within the Church polity. This aroused the suspicion of certain groups, to the extent that the Brothers of Deventer suffered from their attitude.

Three facts illustrate this. When, in the summer of 1451, the Apostolic legate Nicolas of Cues was either staying in Deventer (14-21 August 1451) or was approaching the city, a Canon Regular lodged a complaint concerning the state and the way of life of the Fraters.¹ During this time Egbert ter Beek even had fears that their ‘status,’ this new plant of the communal life, would be entirely uprooted, as some had threatened. He therefore prayed to God continually and even had a comforting vision. In reality he was called into the presence of the legate, who was residing in the ‘episcopal palace’ (bischops hof) in Deventer, and found him to be very favourably inclined. The legate himself praised their status, offered him privileges to strengthen their position, and wished to give the Brothers the canonicate with all the associated rights. Egbert, however, who loved simplicity, declined.²

It seems to me that one may deduce from this report that Nicolas of Cues did not stay with the Brothers when he went to school as a boy in Deventer. If he had, one imagines that they would have had more confidence in him and not been so afraid. For the community of the Brothers, the proposal to give the fraters the canonicate meant forming a chapter, while retaining the communal life and transforming the chapel into a collegial church. In this Nicolas was reverting to the privilege granted by pope Eugene IV on April 18th 1439 to Bernard of Büderich the representative in Rome of Henry von Ahaus, rector

1 It is not known who this plaintiff was; perhaps a canon from the monastery of Northorn, the legate's last stopping place before Deventer.

2 Dumbar, Analecta I 173.

[p. 357]

of the Münster Brotherhouse.¹ This privilege, which was originally intended for the houses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel, threw the Münster colloquium into complete confusion in 1439, and it was decided to conceal it, a state of affairs which lasted for at least ten years. For a long time the privilege continued to provoke discord among the Brothers, and the whole matter illustrates how strange the institution of the Brothers must have appeared to Roman, legal-minded officials and also to pope Eugene IV. To them, the Brothers bore most resemblance to canons of collegial churches who had either retained the communal life since the eighth century or else had re-introduced it, as in the Lateran congregation, restored by Pope Eugene IV. In their opinion the Brothers had only to change their name and no one would trouble them further. The community of dormitory, refectory and property, the work and the practice of virtue, all could continue as usual. If they formed a chapter they would have to sing the hours in the chapter, just as formerly. Only a little change would thus be necessary. That such an idea should arise and be transmitted by the legate Nicolas to Egbert ter Beek, shows that these gentlemen had no idea of the Brothers' humility, simplicity and striving after inward devotion, but also that the legal basis of the Fraternity, despite the approval of bishops and council, was by no means sound. Well disposed church dignitaries wished to help them with a status which existed unopposed in Italy, but which was abhorred, perhaps unjustifiably, by the Brothers. In Germany especially this problem would crop up again repeatedly.

The attacks, the contempt and the neglect evidently continued, and rector Egbert ter Beek complained to John Brugman who had visited the Brothers on various occasions and, after some hesitation, had gained a great respect for their work and general religious attitude. In 1470 Brugman, the former penitential preacher, lay worn out and ill in the monastery of the Observant Franciscans in Nijmegen. He answered ter Beek in two letters, one in November 1470.² The second letter, which is dated 15th September, but with no mention of the year, seems to have been written later, and may be dated in 1471 or '72. Brugman consoles the rector and the fraters of Deventer. Although

1 E. Barnikol, Studien zur Geschichte der Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben, Tübingen 1917, 99-100.

2 Publ. W. Moll, Johannes Brugman en het godsdienstig leven onser vaderen in de vijftiende eeuw I, Amsterdam 1854, 198-217, II 218-223. F.A.H.V. den Hombergh, Leven en Werk van Jan Brugman. Diss. Nijmegen, 1967, 39.

[p. 358]

they are the youngest of the various orders and congregations, they are doing excellent work. He refers to the work of John Gerson on the bringing of boys to Christ and thus considers the Brothers' work among the schoolboys of the greatest importance. They must persevere in this work and not lose heart, remembering that they are only the stewards. Of these it is especially required that they should be found faithful. ‘The Church rejoices in your work. Do not desist from leading children to Christ.’

The second letter is again a reply by Brugman to the rector of the Fraternity of Deventer. The Franciscan expresses himself more sharply on the subject of the Brothers' opponents. They must not allow themselves to be confused by the ‘barbarorum rabies.’ ‘O Deventer, from you flow not the living waters of salvation and regular life, but the dead water of tyranny and hate towards the elect of God.’ Yet the rector and his small flock must not let themselves be dismayed.

These expressions are very apposite during rector ter Beek's conflict with the magistrate over the Sisterhouses. It is a small but significant episode. The rector of the Brotherhouse, Egbert ter Beek, vigilant for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the Sisters of Deventer, obtained from the pastor, and subsequently from the bishop and the pope, the privilege of celebrating Mass within these Sisterhouses. The fraters were also permitted to hold collations freely, give Holy Communion, administer the Last Sacraments and hear confessions at the appropriate times. There appeared, however, to be some difficulty about providing a suitable chapel for the two Sisterhouses, Brandeshuys and Kerskenshuis. Still, they were situated side by side, and in 1470 ter Beek broke down the dividing wall and made the two houses into one. The two congregations were thus united into one, the Brandeshuys. As an addition to the privileges, however, he decreed that the Sisters henceforward would no longer visit the parish church, in other words they would stay at home. But this did not suit some of the freer spirits at all, Sisters who were already somewhat discontented. This measure deprived them of the freedom to walk abroad, look around, chat with friends in the town and sometimes visit their houses under pretext of necessity. They inflamed the burgomasters against the rector. These ordered, under pain of penalty, that the two houses should be separated once again, and that the Sisters should be allowed to visit the church in the normal manner, and that

[p. 359]

Egbert should not prevent them unless he could show the city administrators urgent reasons for his actions. The burgomasters must have felt sure of their ground, but Egbert ter Beek was more than a match for them! He pointed out that the Sisters in question were their own daughters and nieces, and that their spiritual welfare was at stake. They could please themselves whether or not they wished to bear the responsibility. The consequences would be on their own consciences. The gentlemen deliberated for a while and then charged the rector to do as he thought best for the Sisters' salvation.¹

He was also struck a cruel blow, in senio suo, in his old age, on hearing that the rector of the Fraternity of Doesburg had persuaded all his fraters to become Canons Regular and thus transform the house of Doesburg into a monastery of the Windesheim congregation. Things had already proceeded so far that the prior of Windesheim had arrived in Doesburg to invest the Brothers as Canons. On hearing this, Egbert immediately made for Doesburg, changed the fraters' minds for them and strongly condemned the prior's action. When the latter said that it was no harm to lead the Brothers from the secular to the religious state, Egbert answered: ‘I have not come here because you are turning seculars into monks, but because, contrary to the law of charity, you are usurping our buildings for yourself. This house was given to the Brothers so that our fraters might dwell in it. Anyone who wishes to become a monk must leave it and transfer to the monasteries.’ At this the prior slunk off.²

Although the financial position was sound in the Brotherhouse of Deventer at the death of Egbert ter Beek in 1483, and there was room enough, still the Brothers entered the period of Humanism with a certain amount of pessimism. They had no school, no university training and were not versed in theology. For the past fifty years they had to a great extent lost control of the Devotionalists outside Deventer. This control had passed to the Zwolle house, for the Netherlands, and to Münster for the foundations lying more to the East.

The data concerning the internal history of the house of St. Gregory, the Zwolle Brotherhouse, were provided by one of the Brothers of this house who wrote the narratio de inchoatione domus clericorum in

1 Dumbar, Analecta I, 171-173.

2 Ibid., 175. This matter will be dealt with again when discussing the history of the Brotherhouse at Doesburg.

[p. 360]

Zwolle. This was James of Utrecht, otherwise known as de Voecht.¹ Unlike the biographies of the Deventer Brothers, this entire narratio is written by one person, between 1490 and 1500.² It is a collection of biographies arranged according to the Brothers' dates of death, but with a fairly detailed biography of the rector preceding the Vitae of the Brothers who died during the office of the rector in question. An important factor is that the author usually mentions what functions each Brother had. In the second chapter, I have already been able to show, with these data, that the clerici usually became priests. We shall deal with this question immediately.

The prominent position acquired by the Zwolle house in this period, which exceeded the influence of the house of Deventer, is partly to be attributed to the three rectors who ruled the house at this time. These were Theodoricus Hermanssoen of Herxen, usually called Dirk of Herxen (7th January 1410 to 21st March 1457), Albert Paep of Calcar (24th April 1457 to 4th May 1482) and Henry Zwart of Herxen (before May 29th 1481 to 16th January, 1487). Although the latter's period as head of the house was short, in his position as procurator he took a considerable part in the administration of the house during his predecessor's time. The two Herxen were from Salland and Albert Paep of Calcar from the Cologne district. They thus represented the two regions which provided very many Brothers for the houses of Deventer and Zwolle and for the first monasteries of Windesheim. All three were of notable families, which will have contributed in no small degree to raising their prestige in the eyes of the Brothers and of the outside world. They may have had inborn qualities of leadership. Dirk of Herxen's father was a “rich man,” a property owner in the neighbourhood from which he derived his name, close by Windesheim. His family was not only rich, but also of high rank, according to Dirk's uncle Meynold, ‘armiger’ attached to the episcopal court of Florens von Wefelinkhoven, probably of knightly degree.³ The second rector, Albert Paep, must have been born around 1410 at Calcar. His father was an extremely learned and literate man who was highly esteemed at the court of the Duke of Cleves where he was adviser. When he sent his son Albert to the school in

1 This Narratio is edited, with various Akten en Bescheiden concerning this Brotherhouse, by M. Schoengen. Werken H.G. Nieuwe serie 13 (1908), quoted as Schoengen.

2 Schoengen CXIII.

3 P.H.J. Knierim, Dirc van Herxen (1385-1457), rector van het Zwolsche fraterhuis, Leidse diss. 1926, 1-4.

[p. 361]

Zwolle he sent a paedagogus or tutor with him. This, however, did not prevent the young Albert from establishing contacts with compatriots within the Brotherhouse, which furthered his vocation to the Common Life. He accompanied the Brothers into exile in Doesburg in 1426 and there joined the congregation, to the great distress of his father who had pinned all his hopes on Albert, to the exclusion of his other children. In the end, however, Albert succeeded in winning him over. He was followed by another from Herxen, a blood relative of Dirk's and admitted to the house under him. His family's position is sufficiently clear from the fact that his parents, together with other rich persons of the district, had appointed a good teacher (informator) who taught the young lads Latin and other branches of learning¹ in the house of Knight Henry of Essen, on the property called Terwee near Zwollerkerspel. This private tuition continued for some time, but finally the young Henry aspired to higher things. He wanted to learn more. He went to the school in Zwolle where the rector, James of Hattem, a Paris Master of Arts and head of the Zwolle school since 1429, soon placed him in the next to the highest class, the second.² Henry was a good pupil (clericus) and the rector asked him to teach for a time in the school, as Wessel Gansfort for example, had done. With the aid of the rector of the Brotherhouse, Dirk of Herxen, he managed to persuade him, so that Henry became a teacher at the school in Zwolle.

It seems as though the chronicler did not entirely approve of this step. He stresses that it was only a temporary post, that it was accepted in a spirit of obedience, that Henry hurried through the works of the poets and philosophers and if he did dally on any point it was from apologetic motives. Finally, however, Henry conceived the desire to serve God, integralius, with all his powers. He came to the conclusion that his school activities were too distracting³ and realized that there was no safer or more exalted way to follow the Redeemer than through the way of humility, obedience and poverty, chosen by all monks, even though they carried out their duties half-heartedly.

1 Schoengen 175-176.

2 Schoengen 176. I used to think, with others, that this took place when he was already a cleric of the Brotherhouse. In this I was led astray by the double meaning of the word clericus, pupil and at the same time cleric, i.e. Brother of the Fraterhouse. That the meaning here must be pupil follows from the rest of the story which says that Henry was admitted to the Fraterhouse after relinquishing his position as teacher.

3 Schoengen 176, 177.

[p. 362]

He finally elected to join the Fraternity. He was attracted by their humble state, the value which they placed upon love, the emphasis on poverty, the preference of work to begging and the opportunity offered to exercise practical pastoral care. He thus requested and obtained a place in the Brotherhouse.¹

These three rectors, Dirk, Albert and Henry, had entirely absorbed the principles of the Modern Devotionalists, and applied them in word and example. In this way they attracted many young boys, were obliged to expand their hostels, were able to found five new Brotherhouses and provide confessors for several new Sisterhouses. In addition, they, together with the rectors of Deventer and Hulsbergen, established a union of the various houses in the Netherlands, the so-called colloquium Zwollense. In this the rectors of Zwolle, with those of the other two houses, played leading roles. Dirk of Herxen was ‘tanquam omnium devotorum generalis pater.’

During this period the number of members in the Zwolle Fraternity greatly increased. As we saw, when Dirk of Herxen was elected in 1410 there were four priests, four clerici and two lay brothers.² In 1432, after the return from exile in Doesburg, the Zwolle company consisted of three priests, eleven clerics and two lay brothers-despite the fact that they had left some Brothers behind in Doesburg to form the nucleus of the new foundation there.³ At Dirk's death in 1457 the house consisted of eight priests, 15 clerics and one lay brother.⁴ At rector Albert's death in 1482, the community of the Zwolle fraternity totalled 35 persons. Of these 23 are given the title dominus, which indicates that in the eyes of the chroniclers they were either priests already or destined to become priests. They may still have been clerici in 1482, yet have become priests before 1490 (when de Voecht concluded his chronicle).⁵ The ratio of priests, clerici and lay brothers of 1410 and 1457, respectively: 4-4-2, 8-14-1, was thus only apparently interrupted with 23-10-2. The repeated use of postea indicates the accuracy of this explanation: for example dominum Johannem Westerwoldt in Prutia postea primum confessorem op die Maet; dominum Petrum Dinxlaken, postea confessorem in Buscodocis the Orthen. The title dominus was evidently applied to the persons in question since the chronicler was familiar with their later careers. There are two exceptions to this.

1 Schoengen, 105.

2 Ibid., 43.

3 Ibid., 92.

4 Ibid., 116-117.

5 Ibid., 170-173.

[p. 363]

Henry of Cleves and Dirk of Deventer are not called dominus although the chroniclers mention that the former was later confessor in Marienbosch near Zwolle, and the second in 's-Hertogenbosch.¹

What I have deduced from certain words in the chronicle regarding the house of Deventer, can be demonstrated again and again with respect to Zwolle. Those who entered as lay brothers only exceptionally attained the rank of cleric or priest, whereas the clerics as a rule were eventually ordained as priests. Of the clerici mentioned in 1457, the following were given functions for which ordination was required: Franco of Nijkerk became rector in 's-Hertogenbosch (ten Orten).² Henry Wachtendonk remained a cleric for a long time, became a priest out of obedience, but died not many years after his ordination.³ Arnold of Vollenhove was ordained priest, but seems to have been troubled by scruples, so that he did not occupy any priestly function.⁴ Henry of Alkmaar became confessor Op die Maet in Zwolle.⁵ Rutger of Doetinchen was priest-procurator of the domus pauperum.⁶ Gerard of Xanten was cook for a time with the schoolboys, but after his ordination he was appointed confessor in Calcar.⁷ John Westerwold went as priest with two clerics to Culm, to form the nucleus of the new house,⁸ Dirk of Calcar, the librarian, was chosen for ordination;⁹ Herman of Koevorden is later mentioned twice as dominus.¹⁰ The remaining four, William of Rees, Folker of Tunen, Jacob of Dalen and Hubert Goeden, all died young.¹¹ There then remains James Trajecti, or de Voecht, the chronicler, who says little about himself, but who is mentioned as a priest in the documents.¹² H. Wachtendonk was virtually forced into the priesthood¹³ and Rutger of Doetinchem still became a priest although he had not learned sufficient Latin.¹⁴

The Brotherhouse in Zwolle was thus, to all intents and purposes, a training college for priests who would later be called upon to take up functions either in their own house as rector, procurator or confessor to the students, or in the hostels, or else as confessor in the various Sisterhouses. In the introduction to the Narratio Schoengen

1 Schoengen, 21, 173.

2 Ibid., 170.

3 Ibid., 148.

4 Ibid., 151.

5 Ibid., 152.

6 Ibid., 155.

7 Ibid., 160.

8 Ibid., 135.

9 Ibid., 164.

10 Ibid., 190, 194.

11 Ibid., 119, 147, 161, 166.

12 Schoengen, 410 n. 7.

13 Ibid., 148.

14 Ibid., 154.

[p. 364]

names 25 of these, six within Zwolle and 19 outside.¹ This does not necessarily mean that all these houses without exception always received a Brother from the Zwolle house. The function was sometimes confided to a member of the secular clergy, for instance a friend of the Zwolle Devotionalists or one who had not been able to persevere as a Brother, yet still enjoyed the confidence of the rector. On the other hand, the confessor sometimes received an assistant, so that there were two Brothers living among the Sisters. Not all these houses belonged to Sisters of the Common Life; sometimes they had adopted a monastic rule.

The idea that the Modern Devotion was ever a lay movement is contradicted by the Brothers in the houses of Deventer and Zwolle. Judging from the deeds which have been preserved and the data given in the Narratio, all legal and administrative business was carried out by priests. It is interesting to see how at first one, later two priests, then three and finally and usually four, lived in the new house. In 1400 only the rector Gerard of Calcar was a priest. His administrative assistant, Gijsbert of Vlijmen had not yet been ordained.² By 1404 the latter has also become a priest; both are mentioned in the charters as governors.³ In 1407 they have been joined by a third, Peter Hovesch.⁴ In 1420 Dirk of Herxen, Gerard of Calcar and Herman ter Maet⁵ are called priests and provisores. In 1451 Dirk of Herxen, Albert of Calcar and Henry Zwarte were priests.⁶ A few years later there were four of them, namely: ‘Wij, Theodoricus van Herxen, Gerardus van Vollenhove, Albertus Kalker en de Henricus Zwarte priesters (ende) provisoers.’⁷ This was so in 1460, 1473, 1479 and 1484,⁸ but two of them, the rector and the procurator, sufficed to represent the house in law.

1 In confirmation may I refer to a notarial document of October 7th. 1465, in which 14 clerici of the Zwolle house are mentioned, together with 7 priests. It can be proved that 8 of these 14 clerici became priests after 1465, according to the data given in the Narratio: Jacobus Traiecti de Wijck (168) Petrus Dinslaken (210), Wilhelmus van Gelre (171), Egidius Weert (171), Paulus Lessen (167), Gerardus de Weerdt (172), Arnoldus van Emmerik (195) en Alardus van Calcar (189). Two died young: Fockerus de Runen (166) and Herman van Koevorden (193). Four are not mentioned again: Everardus van Calcar, Gherardus Zwart and Lambertus ter Starte and Jasper de Weeynre.

2 Schoengen, 297, 299, 300.

3 Ibid., 303, 312.

4 Ibid., 314.

5 Ibid., 322.

6 Ibid., 339.

7 Ibid., 346.

8 Ibid., 359, 362, 365, 269.

[p. 365]

It is striking that, especially in the notarial documents, whereby the new clerics renounced all claim on their own property or that of the community, they are repeatedly given as clerici Coloniensis, Leodiensis, or Traiectensis diocesis.¹ This evidently indicates their home diocese. It was merely a geographical concept, without rights or obligations on either side, or even without any previous contact between these persons and the heads of the dioceses. This also occurs in a notarial document with: dominus Jacobus de Delft, presbiter Traiectenis dyocesis ac procurator domus scholarium divitum opidi Zwollensis dicte diocesis.² The Jacob in question was undoubtedly a Brother of the Common Life, but this titling might lead one to consider him as a secular priest of the Utrecht diocese. It is a misleading appellation which may perhaps be attributed to the tendency of the notaries of those days to state always the time, place and person in detail.

This conclusion concerning the priests gives rise to the question: what was the position with regard to the priest-candidates' studies? As we have already pointed out, these candidates were mostly recruited from the schools of Zwolle and Deventer, and it is sufficiently clear that the novices went directly from school to the Brotherhouse and were received as clerics after a trial period. The boys at Zwolle and Deventer could receive two years more schooling than elsewhere and were able to acquire some notions of philosophy. In the other cities and outside Zwolle and Deventer, the third class was usually the highest. From this the boys proceeded to the university, or to train as priests, or to take up a job. This was usually at about 15 years of age. Some boys began late and thus also finished later. As a rule, those who had gone through secunda and prima were about 17 when they left school.³

There is now sufficient data to show that the Brothers took their recruits straight from school, either as tertiarii or as secundarii and primarii.

Dirk of Herxen went straight from the Deventer school to the Brothers in Zwolle,⁴ Gerard of Vollenhove was ‘received into our house from the school’ (in Zwolle).⁵ Albert of Calcar attended school in Zwolle, lodging in the Brothers' hostel with the other schoolboys.

1 Schoengen, 411.

2 Ibid., 480.

3 R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs in Nederland gedurende de Middeleeuwen, Utrecht 1954, 82-118.

4 Schoengen 48, 51.

5 Ibid., 93.

[p. 366]

When he had completed his studies he was received into the Fraternity.¹ James of Wijck of Utrecht,² James of Enkhuizen,³ Nicolas of Delft,⁴ Peter of Dinslaken,⁵ Folker of Ruenen,⁶ John Lennop,⁷ Reinier of Maastricht,⁸ - all these entered the Fraternity straight from school. Some of them had first lived in the domus pauperum. The fact that all the fraters, whose education is in any way mentioned, went straight from the Latin school to the Fraternity, is not unimportant. The others will certainly not have enjoyed a superior education, for the above mentioned nine include some prominent members of the community. There were three future rectors, Dirk of Herxen, Albert of Calcar and Henry of Herxen, all three from fairly prominent families. Two of them had attained the secunda.

Pupils of the fourth or third class were usually also admitted in the other monasteries. Several of the seculars were ordained without any further school instruction. The Mendicant Orders, on the other hand, possessed fairly well equipped schools to provide higher education for the members of the order. Was this also the case among the Brothers? The chronicler does not mention the subject at all. Evidently it did not interest him. None of these Brothers attended university. They remained in the house, copied books, meditated and were devout, zealous, humble, obedient and simple. After a few years they were ordained and entered into their function of confessor to the Sisters or administrator in their own house or in one of the hostels. Their philosophical and theological training must have been minimal. In this respect they were the lowest of all the clergy, perhaps on the same level with those of the older orders. Most of the secular clergy were scarcely more advanced, but they did include people who had imbibed the university atmosphere for a few years at least. The term in-breeding is often used in connection with such houses, but this is scarcely possible since they had never had any good breeding to begin with. Several of the Brothers had a comfortable time with the Sisters, some of them grew fat, and they regaled their fellow Brothers with cheese or received them in their houses.⁹

The chronicler James de Voecht wrote a good Latin hand and had a perfect command of the Latin of his period. He was writing at the

1 Schoengen 120, 171.

2 Ibid., 168.

3 Ibid., 190.

4 Ibid., 206.

5 Ibid., 209.

6 Ibid., 166.

7 Ibid., 146.

8 Ibid., 211.

9 Ibid., 169.

[p. 367]

time when the first Humanists, trained in Italy, entered the Netherlands, but for this Brother, who after all had close contacts with the schoolboys and with some of the schoolteachers, the new culture remained a closed book. He makes no allusion to it in his chronicle. For him it does not exist! What a contrast to the founder of the Modern Devotionalists, Geert Groote! He was himself an academic and despite his pastoral work, continued to show a lively interest in books and learning. He possessed texts of the Holy Scriptures, the Church Fathers, a few of the classics and the medieval theologians and canonists. There is no mention of any of this here! The chronicler had eyes only for the physical perfections of the Brothers, for their works and zeal, for their skill in copying and illuminating books¹ and for their persistent labours. He looked then to their obedience, docility, humility and piety.

The chronicler had as little interest in the school subjects, notably Latin and the Latin authors, as he had in theology. The Brothers took no part in teaching at the Zwolle school. Henry of Herxen and Nicolas of Middelburg have been cited as teaching-brothers but this was not so. Henry of Herxen has already been discussed. Nicolas of Middelburg, a brother of the Zwolle schoolrector Livinus and an equally good friend of the rector of the Brotherhouse, Dirk of Herxen, whose advice they gladly followed, was a teacher at the school of Zwolle but not a Brother. Dirk of Herxen sent him as confessor to the Sisters of Oen on the Veluwe and he was still living there when James de Voecht wrote his narratio. One can see that he was not a frater from the final statement that Nicolas greatly enriched the Sisterhouse materially, with his own goods and with those of his brother Livinus.² A Brother of the Common Life could not possibly dispose of his own goods! James of Goch, lector of the third class, was not a frater at this time either.³

The author, however, did show some interest in the schoolboys, and particularly in those boys who lived in one of the Brothers' hostels, the domus pauperum, as much as the houses for the richer or well-to-do students. There were separate houses in Zwolle for these last two groups. The mediocres amounted to 30 or 40 boys.⁴ A few were also admitted into other houses.⁵

1 Schoengen 76, 77, 94, 103, 123, 143, 149, 151, 152, 159-161, 163, 167, 183, 190, 193, 208, 209.

2 Ibid., 88-89.

3 Ibid., 202.

4 Ibid., 125.

5 Ibid., 196.

[p. 368]

De Voecht naturally informs us who the heads of the various hostels were and who were their assistants. In this he is more interested in the Brothers than in the boys. He can tell us that, because of his respect for discipline, John Lennop was appointed leader of the domus pauperum in which he himself had grown up, and that he looked after the poor boys well. When the Zwolle Brothers established a house in Culm he was sent there because he had gained his spurs as a leader of youth.¹ The work they were commencing there must have been the same as in Zwolle. It seems to me that the words ‘We have come to further your boys in learning and in virtue’² require some explanation. They received the boys into their house, kept them under supervision and tried, by word and example, to turn them into virtuous youths. They also went over their school lessons with them. This must be the scientia of which the chronicler speaks, for the Brothers knew no other. They therefore lost heart when they failed to attract many rich boys. Two brothers, Gerard Weerdt and Lambert Herck returned to Zwolle with the rector scholarium.³ One is perhaps justified in assuming that this was John Lennop.⁴

The Brothers did not devote themselves exclusively to the boys in their hostels. As early as the 20th of December 1418, the parish priest of Zwolle, Henry of Compostella, gave the fraters permission to hear confessions, not only of the boys in the hostels, but also of the other pupils or schoolboys of his parish. He also allowed them, on feast days, to read aloud a passage from the Holy Scriptures for the schoolboys and any others who wished to attend, at times when no services or sermons were held in the church. Further, to converse with them on spiritual matters, provided that this did not take the form of a sermon, but remained merely a simple exhortation.⁵ Bishop Rudolf of Diepholt allowed them to distribute Holy Communion to the boys of the hostels, but the other pupils of the city schools were evidently excluded.⁶ (21st March 1452). The same bishop, on March 20th 1455, recognized the fraters' right to exercise pastoral care among all the schoolboys⁷ and this right was ratified by his successor, David of

1 Schoengen 196.

2 Ibid., 136.

3 Ibid., 137. What Schoengen writes in note 4, p. 137, is no longer tenable.

4 He had worked under John Westerwold in Zwolle; the latter was the first rector in Culm.

5 Schoengen 427.

6 Ibid., 430.

7 Ibid., 431.

[p. 369]

Burgundy, on Jan. 2nd 1457 and March 1st 1464.¹ The same privileges were extended to the fraters in Groningen. During the second half of the fifteenth century, the spiritual independence of the Brothers with respect to their own brethren, commensales and schoolboys, was on the increase. In the last two charters mentioned, their property was also placed under the protection of the church in Utrecht, and amortised so that it was considered as church goods. This finally resulted in their obtaining full parochial rights and exemption from the parish priest and parish (on May 5th and 20th 1502) for the Brothers and Sisters of Zwolle, Groningen and Deventer.² The rector of the Brotherhouse in fact became pastor to the Sisters and also to the schoolboys lodging in their houses, with the exception of those in the house of the rich pupils.³ This, however, seems to have been only an episode.

The gradual increase in the number of Brothers in Zwolle, which kept pace with the growth of the priestly activities, is all the more remarkable since they also established five new foundations in this period: at Harderwijk, 's-Hertogenbosch, Groningen, Doesburg and Culm (Prussia).

We possess few details concerning the setting up of the house in the Hinthammerstraat in 's-Hertogenbosch. According to the Zwolle narratio however, it was done on request, probably on the part of the city magistrate who will have appreciated the value of the Brothers' co-operation in the education of the school children. Rector Dirk of Herxen granted the request in 1424 and sent the priest Gerard Scadde of Calcar, brother of the first rector of the Zwolle house of the same name. This Gerard was one of his best assistants. He had studied for a time in Prague and had abandoned everything to become a Brother in Zwolle. An obedient and devout man, he despised the world. A number of fraters accompanied him to 's-Hertogenbosch. Gerard Scadde remained head of the new house until his death in 1435 and laid the foundations of this renowned establishment - the house of St. Gregory.⁴ An attempt to found a second house in 's-Hertogenbosch

1 Schoengen 433, 434.

2 Ibid., 442-448.

3 It was thus impossible for the parish priest of Zwolle to require the Sisters to come to the parish church on feast days and also confess there, as had been demanded by Dirc Mengo around the middle of the century. One again the antipathy of the civic authorities and the people towards the Brothers became evident. Again they were vilified as Bogards: P.J.H. Knierim, Dirc van Herxen, Diss. Leiden 1926, 97.

4 Schoengen 78-80; see hereafter p. 391.

[p. 370]

was suppressed for the time being by the leader of the congregation. This foundation was the work of John of Wesel, rector of the Sisters of the house of St. Andreas at Ten Orthen. This house contained five hundred sisters, and John of Wesel required some assistance in looking after their spiritual needs. Having acquired helpers he received them into his house, at the same time making them Brothers of the Common Life, and under this title, probably had them ordained. All this was done with the approval of the episcopal curia of Liège. The brothers of the Fraternity proper complained about these actions and plans at the colloquium and the leaders came to take stock of the situation. These were Albert, rector of the Zwolle house, his colleague Egbert ter Beek from Deventer and Henry of Grave from the Doesburg house. They wished to relieve John of Wesel of his function and to this end undertook a journey to Liège in order to enlist the support of the episcopal administration there.¹ In the end they arrived at a compromise. John of Wesel was allowed to stay, but was not allowed to continue with his new foundation. Some of his collaborators departed, and others did penance.² The house however remained.

The house in Doesburg was a fruit of the exile of the Zwolle fraters under the leadership of Dirk of Herxen. On account of the interdict they left Zwolle in 1426 and settled in Doesburg. They were accompanied at this time by Livinus, then rector of the Zwolle school.³ According to the chronicle of Doesburg, Livinus was appointed head of the school there. This will have undoubtedly contributed in no small measure to its success. The Brothers continued the work they had been doing in Zwolle. They were evidently able to set up a hostel for schoolboys and accept new members. When they returned to Zwolle in 1432, they left a sufficient number of Brothers behind in Doesburg, so that from this date onwards the city had a new and independent Brotherhouse. The Doesburg chronicle mentions three priests and speaks rather exaggeratedly of quam plures fratres.⁴ After the initial ‘teething troubles’ the establishment proceeded to flourish. We shall later discuss those aspects of its history which are characteristic for the Brothers in general.

1 It is not entirely clear why this had to be done.

2 Schoengen 130. Schoengen places these last events in the second half of 1459, p. 130 n. 4.

3 According to Schoengen 88; the chronicle of the house of Doesburg p. 7, states, wrongly, in my opinion, that this Livinus was rector of the parva domus, i.e. the hostel, in Zwolle.

4 Ibid., 9.

[p. 371]

The same holds good for the house in Groningen, founded between 1432 and 1436 with the Zwolle frater William Wigbold of Groningen as first rector.¹ No details, however, have come down to us.

The origins of the foundation at Harderwijk are clearly defined. It was the civic administration, (as in 's-Hertogenbosch) who requested Dirk of Herxen to set up an establishment. They bought a house for the Brothers and placed it at their disposal on January 12th 1441.² To this was added the house next door, granted to the Brothers by a private individual, but certainly with the permission of the municipality (20th January 1442).³ It was a lavish beginning. Miss Knierim rightly connects the municipality's attitude with the school policy of the magistrate, who appointed a new rector about this time, (18th May 1441) and when deciding his salary took into account that he would attract 300 boys from outside the city.⁴ The houses of 's-Hertogenbosch, Doesburg and Harderwijk all took St. Gregory as their patron; Groningen, however, opted for St. Jerome.

The beginning of the house at Culm had a somewhat dramatic character. In order to strengthen the bonds of friendship, the rectors and Brothers of Deventer and Zwolle came together at a property belonging to the Deventer Brothers, called Middele. There they passed a joyful and festive day (probably on June 5th 1471),⁵ the anniversary of St. Boniface. When, after the midday meal, they were sitting outside in pleasant conversation, they were approached by a man, Balthasar Neymeyster of Prussia, who had attended school for a time in Zwolle, ‘together with our boys’ (‘qui ad tempus cum nostris scolaribus steterat in studio Zwollensi.’) He requested earnestly, and in the presence of all our rectors, that they should consider and decide to send a number of Brothers with him to Culm in order to found a new congregation, and promised them help. The fraters, he said, could acquire much fruit there, since the harvest was great but the labourers few. The rector of Zwolle, Albert Paep of Calcar, after deliberating the pros and cons, took the burden upon himself in a spirit of charity, and at the request

1 H.O. Feith in: Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis en ondheidkunde van de provincie Groningen, VI, 14 H. Roelfsema: Groningen volksalmanak 1920, 29, Schoengen 101. P.H.J. Knierim, Dirc van Herxen, 73-76.

2 Archief ... aartsb. Utrecht V (1878) 117. Harderwijk Archiv. inventaris no. 798. 1 fol. 11 Reg. (samengesteld door P. Berends, no. 213).

3 Ibid., 118.

4 Knierim 77. R. Post, Scholen en onderwijs in Nederland, gedurende de Middeleenwen; Utrecht 1954. 133, 166.

5 Schoengen, 134, n. 2.

[p. 372]

of Egbert of Deventer and of the Zwolle Brothers. Rector Albert was very willing to embark on a new foundation, but not close by, since the places there were full of monasteries! He preferred to begin at a greater distance where the need was greater according as the Devotion was more rare and thus of more value, while greater fruits might be expected. This comparatively modern missionary note does great credit to the Zwolle rector. He was, however, perhaps a little over-hasty in his actions, for the new foundation proved a problem child. With no preliminary investigation, depending solely on Balthasar's word, the Rector despatched the priest John Westerwolt and two brotherclerics with some money and other requisites. They found Culm, however, to be an impoverished town with few inhabitants. It did not even boast a carpenter! They were given a small and completely empty house by some laymen and were also gratefully welcomed by the townspeople. Some, however, murmured and asked: Who are these people and what do they want here? The fraters said: ‘We have come to help your sons to make progress in knowledge (scientia) and virtue, as we are and live in the diocese of Utrecht.’¹ And such were their beginnings: in poverty, in a town depopulated by the wars and deserted by the monks. Where only a few of those who remained had any knowledge of or respect for the truth, or learned the right way. Hence there was much misunderstanding and opposition, especially on the part of the non-observant mendicant monks.²

What was it the Brothers began here (around 1472)? Was it a school where none existed before? If there was a school already, did the teachers simply resign their task to the Brothers? If there was not, were the Brothers able to conjure up such an institution without co-operation from the town? Were they capable of doing this? Was this their work in the diocese of Utrecht? Indeed it was not. At the very most they could receive boys into their house, as they did everywhere, train them in virtue and help them with their studies. This latter is encouragingly termed ‘in scientia,’ in the interests of propaganda. That this was their aim seems to me clearly evident from the statement that there, as was said, only few rich students desired to live with the Brothers.³ Hence their various difficulties, setbacks, helplessness and poverty. They despaired of success, of the necessity of the undertaking itself and of its use for others. After two years, the two Brothers returned home to Zwolle with the rector of their school-

1 Schoengen, 134-135.

2 Ibid., 136.

[p. 373]

boys; cum rectore scolarium ipsorum. This last phrase has often been taken as proof that the Brothers had a school in Culm. If this were so it would be interesting to know the nature of this little school, the number of pupils and the subject-matter taught. It must in any case have been extremely small, for there was only one teacher. L. Schulze, however, thinks that the bishop gave the Brothers permission to set up a studium particulare which only developed with difficulty despite the additional rights granted in 1489.¹ In my opinion, however, the boys mentioned here are only inmates of a hostel, another unsuccessful attempt to provide themselves with an income and useful work. But John Westerwolt did not give in so easily. He wanted to persevere, and thus arrived in Zwolle after some time, promised all manner of good fruits and again asked for help in persons and money. He obtained both. He was given some schoolboys with fraters of very high reputation; first two experienced men and soon three more. ‘Then it went well’, says de Voecht. He mentions a very edifying letter sent to Culm by the Zwolle rector of the Brotherhouse, Albert Paep, shortly before his death. It is dated May 9th 1481, and will be discussed later.²

Balthasar, with whom we are already acquainted, had made it known some time before that he desired his estate - less the money intended for the payment of debts - to go to the Brothers at Culm. The draft of such a will was drawn up in Zwolle. The character of the Brotherhood of priests and lay-brothers is given in the more usual manner, but there is no mention here of education. It is not known if or when the house received these goods.

A school in Culm is mentioned twice more. This is already in another period, but since the reports are so brief they may be reproduced here.

‘Im Jahre 1508 ward den durch einige Mitgleider des Rostocker Hauses verstärkten Brüder die Leitung einer allgemeiner Landesschule übertragen in welcher sie die freien Kunste, voor nehmlih Philosophie lehrten.’³

The exaggerated tone of the last phrase tends to cast doubt on the first, but I dare not reject this statement without closer study. The

1 Realencyclopedie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. III 498.

2 Ed. Schoengen, 490-492.

3 Th. Hirsch, Die Ober Pfarrkirche van St. Marien in Danzig, I, 252. L. Schulze, R.E. III 498, dates this assistance in 1508 and says that the Brothers relinquished school and house in 1509; this does not accord with the letter.

[p. 374]

second report is in a letter from the fraters of Zwolle in 1539 to their fellow Brothers in Culm. They regret that they cannot send the men requested since they themselves have almost no novices. These Brothers asked for were intended to fulfil the wish of the bishop of Culm. He wanted five or six good men, well educated, scholarly, to take charge of the house and of the gymnasium and to assist in every good work. ‘If we do not agree to his proposal, the bishop will do something different from what we want.’ This was a threat! ‘Must everything for which we have laboured, and devoted our effort and money fall into his hands and be used for other purposes? We pray God that neither the bishop nor anyone else will do this.’¹ This was the time of the Reformation. The Brothers could only save themselves for a time by acting as teachers, a function for which they were not suited, educated or trained. The Brothers in Zwolle were powerless to help, not only because they had too few recruits, but because they lacked erudition and scholars. If this ‘gymnasium’ in question is not yet being run by the Brothers one wonders if the ‘Landesschule’ of 1508 - which must be the same institution - was ever completely in their hands. The house fell into disuse during the Reformation and ceased to exist. Only one Brother showed any trace of sympathy for Luther.

Meanwhile the union of the Brotherhouses continued to develop. They received a ruling organ in the colloquium Zwollense, an annual gathering in Zwolle on the third Sunday after Easter, attended by the rectors of the Dutch Brotherhouses and the confessors of the Sisterhouses. This colloquium is mentioned a few times in the Narratio of the Zwolle house as an existing institution, familiar to the readers of that time.² However, since the records and decrees have not been preserved, we know very little about it. It is only possible to gain a clear idea with the help of analogous gatherings. The spiritual and material interests of the various houses were discussed, probably with reference to the findings of the visitators. These were two rectors appointed by the colloquium, who examined the affairs of each house after the example of the monasteries. Decisions were also taken on admitting new foundations to their community or on granting personal or material aid to a developing house. Risky undertakings were discussed, not only to gain the advice of wise men, but in order to

1 Schoengen 497.

2 Schoengen 77, 169.

[p. 375]

apportion the responsibilities and the risks. The Zwolle colloquium had frequent contact with the chapter of the Windesheimers who met nearby, and with the colloquium of Münster, an equivalent institution of the more easterly houses. It is striking, however, that none of the chronicles, either of Zwolle, Deventer or Doesburg, makes any mention of contacts with Münster, although these must have existed.

During this period the inmates of the house of Zwolle lived according to the same principles as in the preceding years. The basis of their life continued to be contempt for the world (contemptus mundi) and for themselves.¹ This life demanded the practice of many virtues, but chiefly of humility, obedience, patience, poverty, self-sacrifice and industry.² It was maintained at a high level by the study of the Holy Scriptures, by meditation, the renewal of good intentions, prayer, examination of conscience and spiritual reading.³ But these ideals could not be attained without love. Even the struggle towards them could not be maintained without love of God and of each other, but chiefly of their fellow men. Dirk of Herxen established a norm for the Brothers' upkeep-the rest had to be given to the poor.⁴ Humility was fostered by various humiliations, such as the wearing of torn, old-fashioned clothing,⁵ and obedience by beatings (per virgam) among other things.⁶ This contemptus mundi however must not lead to laziness and resignation. On the contrary, the Brothers had to put in long hours of intensive and painstaking work, writing or illuminating books. Their work was much appreciated. Yet this contempt for the world could still be carried so far that a Brother could rejoice on perceiving on his body the first signs of the plague.⁷ All had constantly before their eyes the four last things - death, judgment, hell or heaven.⁸ This emphasis on internal devotion, however, did not rule out externals - ceremonies, the praying or singing of the hours and of the rosary.⁹

This stern and sober way of life demanded perpetual self-control in eating and drinking, resting, walking, speaking and laughing. Everything had to be done in moderation. In the beginning this must have led to a very oppressive and anxious atmosphere, but signs of

1 Schoengen 51, 79, 88, 185, 204.

2 Ibid., 51, 53, 113, 123.

3 Ibid., 55, 68.

4 Ibid., 61.

5 Ibid., 79, 81, 123, 140, 187.

6 Ibid., 94.

7 Ibid., 73.

8 Ibid., 75, 121.

9 Ibid., 119, 149, 159, 162.

[p. 376]

humanity developed in the course of time. These took the form of joyous reunions with Brothers from the other houses in Hulsbergen or Middele; hilarity and hospitality,¹ recreation at Christmas,² an invitation to the magistrates,³ a treat for one of the Sisters' confessors,⁴ a most agreeable companion.⁵ Thus a little worldly sunshine happily penetrated the houses.

This prevailing austerity naturally did not transform the Brothers into saints, but only into zealous aspirers to sanctity. They also had their failures, like the first confessor of the Sisters, the highly esteemed Liefard, of whom so much evil was later spoken.⁶ Some left the house or had to be sent away: even Sisters were, perhaps slanderously, termed rebels.⁷

The magistrate of Zwolle was not always well disposed towards the Brothers. Like the magistrates of other cities, the municipality of Zwolle, urged on in part by the Guilds, tried to prevent the increase of goods held in mortmain. Just as this attitude had originally held up the building of the Brotherhouse, so this policy in 1415 and 1416 led to a conflict in which the Brothers clearly took the side of the clergy and were finally justified by the bishops' intervention (Dec. 13th 1416).⁸ Dirk of Herxen was not perhaps the man to smooth out the tangles in this relationship. His successor, Albert Paep of Calcar, son of an official in Cleves, fared better. After his election (1457) rector Albert invited the magistrates to a meal, once all together and more often separately ‘insofar as they were well disposed to us and to our house. Hence, from this time, the aldermen become more favourable and more faithful towards us.’⁹ For the rest, all three rectors maintained the customs of the house.¹⁰ Prosperity, more extensive buildings for the fraters and the increase in the number of schoolboys and Sisters, rendered life somewhat easier, but the Brothers retained the custom of expending not more than a certain sum on their own upkeep. The remainder was given to the poor.

1 Schoengen 104.

2 Ibid., 118.

3 Ibid., 127.

4 Ibid., 169.

5 Ibid., 129.

6 Ibid., 108.

7 Ibid., 143.

8 P.H.J. Knierim 95, 96: Th.J. de Vries, Gildenwoelingen en interdicten te Zwolle 1413-1416 (Ov. R. en Gesch. 60ste stuk, 2de reeks 36 st.) 1-37.

9 Ibid., 127.

10 Ibid., 112, 122, 207.

[p. 377]

The religious ideals and principles referred to here need not be deduced solely from the Narratio of James Voecht. Dirk of Herxen set down his ideas in several small and a few larger works which have been preserved in manuscript or in print. Albert of Calcar defined this in 1480 in a letter to the Brothers of Culm, so that we possess descriptions from the beginning and the end of this period.

For a description of Dirk of Herxen's works and their history I must refer to the study by Miss Knierim.¹ She reduces them to four groups: A. Paedagogical treatises. B. Pious exercitia. C. Collective works. D. Minor writings and poems. The content of the first group is twofold: ‘The writer addresses himself warningly, even threateningly, to the young people themselves: Repent in your youth, bid the world farewell and devote yourself to the service of God in this time which is the best for yourself and the most agreeable to God.’² He then exhorts the parents, teachers and spiritual guardians to help the young people in their struggle towards this ideal.³ Like Geert Groote, Dirk of Herxen is convinced that the world is declining and that unrighteousness reigns everywhere.⁴ The means to improve this condition are sermons, confidential admonitions, good example, prayer, mercy and charity and the hearing of confessions.⁵

This is the subject matter of three treatises of almost similar title: Tractatus de juvenibus trahendis ad Christum; Libellus de parvulis trahendis ad Christum; Libellus de landabili studio eorum trahentium parvulos ad Christum, and of a fourth with a different title: De innocentia servanda. This last is an exhortation to preserve the innocence gained at baptism and various ways to do this are suggested. The other three works deal with the advantages of the relationship with Christ, first for the juvenes (the young boys), then for the parvuli (the older boys) and finally with the beauty of the educators' task in leading the young people to Christ. In writing these treatises Dirk of Herxen is indebted both for form and content to Jean Gerson's treatise of the same name: Tractatus de parvulis trahendis ad Christum, but not slavishly so. He is aware that he is not speaking for university students, but for boys still attending the studia particularia.⁶

1 Knierim, 100, 104. In 1958 J. Deschamps found De dietse Kollatieboeken van Dirc van Herxen which he has prepared for publication.

2 Ibid., 101.

3 Ibid., 109-110.

4 Ibid., 110.

5 Ibid., 111; this is often the task of the brothers.

6 Ibid., 113-114.

[p. 378]

The educational task of the Brothers was combined with the pastoral, notably their duties as confessors to the sisters. In this too Dirk of Herxen came to his brethrens' assistance with a little work ‘Hints for a Confessor’ in which the principles of the fraters were clearly stated: Wear simple clothes, hold short and moderate conversations (especially with women), live sober and industrious, exemplary and chaste lives, be cautious in dealings with women. He considers that the confessors should not concern themselves with the material aspects of the convents, but only with the spiritual salvation of the Sisters.¹

Miss Knierim takes the Devota Exercitia to consist of seven works, the titles of which are usually self-explanatory.² These are: 1. On the passion of the Lord. 2. On the Our Father. 3. On the Hail Mary. 4. On death and heaven. 5. Pious prayers. 6. Daily exercises. 7. Advice in various difficulties. They offer subject matter for meditation as it was understood by the Brothers in the first period. In the first four the author concurs with ideas which occur frequently among the Brothers and in the later Middle Ages. The Pious prayers are addresses to God, to serve as examples of similar conversations which must be the ultimate goal of their reading and meditation. The daily exercises mentioned under number 6 are in fact three methods of examining the conscience. No. 7, Advice in various difficulties, is given in the form of a dialogue between the foolish and the wise man. This form was utilized in Italy even in the pulpit.

There remain two further points of interest concerning these Devota Exercitia. In connection with the first, the considerations on Christ's passion, divided into 7 articles, each sub-divided into four points, the author of the Narratio tells that they are drawn on the hand, in manu depicta. They were found thus at Dirk's death in 1457.³ This is important because we have here the beginnings of methodical meditation. The writing of key words on the hand was a means of keeping one's thoughts concentrated on the meditation. This method was later employed by the Windesheimer John Mauburnus or Mombaer of Brussels, canon of the St. Agnietenburg, who in his Rosetum exercitium spiritualium, written around 1485, suggests a detailed method of meditation, giving thereby the articulations of the hand. He also employs various key words to focus the mind.⁴ In view of the dates

1 Knierim, 116.

2 Ibid., 117.

3 Schoengen 113.

4 P. Debongnie, Jean Mombaer de Bruxelles, abbé de Livry, Leuven, Toul. 1928, see below p. 545

[p. 379]

1457 (death of Dirk of Herxen) and 1485 (earliest text of the Rosetum) one is perhaps justified in assuming Dirk of Herxen's influence on John Mombaer.

The other point, to which Miss Knierim has also drawn attention, concerns the dialogue between the wise and foolish man. Here Dirk may have taken as his model Petrarch's famous De remediis utriusque fortunae - two books with dialogues between gaudium, spes, ratio, and dolus, ratio and metus on various cases from daily life, and a similarly titled work by Adrian the Carthusian.¹ So far as I can judge this is the first sign of familiarity with Petrarch's works among the Devotionalists. By this time, anyway, Petrarch (1302-1372) had been dead for three-quarters of a century and his works could thus easily have had a wide circulation in the Netherlands. He was certainly known and read by profane authors, especially poets. Dirk of Herxen may not have read this work of Petrarch himself, but have learned of its existence and contents from stories, sermons, anthologies, conversations or the works of contemporaries. It is striking that the first acquaintance of a Devotionalist with a Humanist led to imitation of form, the dialogue with a moral purpose. Here too, Dirk of Herxen deals with keeping thoughts in check during prayer, with impatience at the schoolboys's behaviour, but also, marvellous to relate, with threatened taxation, bad times, badly prepared food. These latter points came under the heading: ‘Be not troubled over temporal things.’²

Under the group Compilations Miss Knierim lists those works by Dirk of Herxen which he wrote in the manner employed by Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt, among others, in compiling their treatises. They gathered together various texts from the Bible, from the Church Fathers, from ecclesiastical writers and the later mystic or meditating theologians. Dirk's opus however, was an enormous undertaking. Under the titles: Instructio religiosorum ex dictis sanctorum, and De dicta doctorum de quibusdam festis et sanctis, together with the tabula, he made a collection of 400 pages, preserved in one binding. The first section of the Instructio Religiosorum comprises texts which touch upon the daily life of the Brothers and incite to the afore-mentioned virtues and attitudes (for example, contempt for the world). The part dealing with the festis et sanctis gives quotations concerning the feast days of the church year and various feast days of the saints, all providing matter for meditation on that particular day, on the nature of the feast,

1 Knierim, o.c. 129.

2 Ibid., 130.

[p. 380]

or the history of the saint in question.¹ Miss Knierim draws attention to the striking fact that while Gerson, Geert Groote and Gerard Zerbolt are all mentioned, Thomas a Kempis is not.²

Among the fourth group of minor writings, Miss Knierim mentions a small work: De communi vita, in which Dirk defends the communal life, using arguments derived from the familiar lawyers and theologians. There is also the Notabilia Dicta, a collection of important sayings by various people which had made a particular impression on Dirk. In this he was following the example of the first Modern Devotionalists who were fond of compiling such rapiaria. Dirk of Herxen, however, is not indebted to any of the other collected Notabilia Dicta. This was an entirely personal work.

In conclusion, the poems of Dirk of Herxen are mentioned; a poem in praise of chastity, written in Latin, and a Christmas hymn in Dutch.³

This zealous rector of the Zwolle Brotherhouse completely fills the first part of the period under discussion (1410-1457), but he also made his mark on the life of the Brothers. In this, for the rest, he was merely continuing the work started by Florens Radewijns and Gerard Zerbolt. A letter, dated May 8th 1481⁴ serves to show that his successor, Albert of Calcar, was still striving after these same ideals towards the end of his life. He expresses his sympathy with the difficulties being experienced by the Brethren in Culm, but regrets that he is too old to come and take stock of the situation himself. He exhorts the Brothers there to reflect on the purpose for which they were sent there: to make God's name more widely known and, if it should please God, to enhance God's honour by increasing his cult and the salvation of souls. This should not be difficult for God. It is thus fitting that they should strive after humility. He refers in this connection to the exercitiones of Dirk of Herxen, who impressed upon them that they should begin a new house in the spirit of humility. ‘As pope Gregory has pointed out, our progress is dependent on the divine blessing. This can be found in the books (always held in high esteem by the Brothers): De vitis sanctorum Patrum, Institutiones et Collationes sanctorum Patrum, Climachus, Sermones beati Bernardi, Profectus religiosorum, books with which we are already well familiar, which define the progress of the spiritual life, revealed by a previous complete and utter conversion

1 Knierim 131-132.

2 Ibid., 132.

3 Ibid., 140-141.

4 Schoengen 493-496.

[p. 381]

and by subsequent sound instruction, by the suppression of faults, the fostering of virtue, which achieves perfect love of God and love of our neighbour. But if you do not yet follow this way, your efforts will not be crowned with success. You will help neither yourselves nor others, but by indolence, negligence and ingratitude towards God you will arouse loathing, and the Lord will spew you from His mouth, a cause of scandal to many and of confusion to yourself and to us all. He shall deprive you of dominion and give it to the people who will bear fruit. Therefore, to come down to particulars, retain complete confidence in and familiarity with your Father unto death, as is written in Climachus, by not judging and condemning his deeds, words and habits. Everyone must examine each movement of his heart, not only those which are plainly bad, but even those which have an appearance of virtue or fear of the Lord. In this one must not be too ready to believe oneself, for self-love is a ready deceiver. But everyone must believe in Him and trust in His judgment, thereby holding in check with sensible moderation all excesses of grace or gifts of nature. Each must beware of his own nature. He must beware of the poison of slander, rivalry, irritability, contradiction, rebellion, presumptuousness and contempt, which is the death of brotherly love and peace in the house, of humanity and of obedience, and signifies the end of the inner man and the enfeeblement of virtue. Futile chatter is to be avoided, either in public, which is contrary to discipline, or covertly and hidden, which is equivalent to slandering and stirring up strife. Let each keep to his exercises - meditation, study, work, as imposed by the superiors or the official. I beseech you, beloved brethren, to be calm and tranquil, to preserve unity in the bond of peace, in the interests of devotion. If everyone carries out his own tasks, the complaints, dissension and murmuring will automatically cease. We know that all disturbances, even the greatest, in the monastery and congregation, have their origin with the grumblers and the trouble-makers. None of you wishes to be called a grumbler or a conspirator even though he is constantly being found guilty of these faults. Grumbling and disapproving is nothing else than, under a pretence of making oneself useful, interfering in everything, disapproving of all measures, constantly passing judgment on the ruling of the house and on the changes made. It is the drawing aside of certain ones and saying: “We do not want him to rule over us.”’

The rector of Zwolle writes thus - he continues - ‘as a precaution, and not because he thinks that any of you are guilty of these failings.

[p. 382]

He wishes to ensure that you will always live in complete community. Fulfil our desires, grant us joy, see that you make progress in humility, in love, in obedience, in peace: God will give you peace. All our Brothers greet you. (Zwolle, May 9th, 1481). Albert.’

This letter gives a clear indication of which virtues must be practised in order to preserve the community and to do fruitful work outside. This work is priestly and consists in enhancing the honour and the worship of God. The virtues mentioned occur again and again, in Florens Radewijns, Dirk of Herxen and now here with Albert. The methods of achieving these virtues are the same, as also are the books of meditation recommended. Man must make an effort, but he can do nothing without God. This theme also runs through Dirk of Herxen's works. While sometimes he stresses man's own activity, at others he points with emphasis to God's work. These authors write to encourage and exhort, not as dogmatists. In essence this is the practice of life, the medieval and later Roman Catholic piety, and also what the great medieval theologians like Thomas Aquinas describe as the co-operation of Creator and created. This idea only presents difficulties if one seeks to explain it too much in detail.

As we have already observed, the house in Doesburg originated from the Zwolle fraters' six years exile in that city. They continued their work there, and on returning to Zwolle in 1432, left behind in the city which had granted them hospitality, a rector and a number of fraters who carried on the communal life. The foundation of this house can thus be situated in 1432.

The history of the house is better known than that of many other foundations for we possess a house chronicle and many archivalia, preserved in the city archives in Doesburg.¹ An edition of the chronicle is in process of preparation. Unlike the Narratio of the Zwolle house, which ended around 1485, this chronicle continues on until 1560. It bears much more resemblance, however, to a set of annals. The author recounts each year's happenings, without confining himself to the vicissitudes of the brethren. He discusses natural catastrophes, the scarcity and high price of foodstuffs, financial setbacks and windfalls, and above all the important happenings in the Dukedom of Gelre, the struggle between Dukes Arnold and Adolf, the conquest of the region

1 Described by A.J. van de Ven, Het ond-archief der Gemeente Doesburg. Twee stukken, Doesburg 1950.

[p. 383]

by Charles the Bold, Maximilian's uprising and struggle, the release of Charles of Gelre, his turbulent years, the adoption of William of Cleves as Duke and the conquest by Charles V. He also relates some of the events in the neighbouring regions, and some highlights in the history of the ‘Reich’, (Empire.) The most important of these are the reactions of certain Netherlanders and the fraters to Luther's activities. Like James de Voecht in the Narratio, the author of the Doesburg annals gives biographies of rectors and various Brothers. But apart from being short and often less approving, the Doesburg annals are arranged differently. The lives of the fraters are not classified with that of the rector in office at their death. They are simply listed according to the year of death. Just as the writer when giving the year of entry in later times also included dates of admission to the Fraternity and of ordination, he lists in addition any function held. Certain details indicate that the writer of the annals described the events at the time when they occurred, so that he does not yet know their outcome. He says for example, of John Frederic, Duke of Saxony, and Philip, landgrave of Hessen, that they, ‘usque in hodierno die captivi tenentur.’¹ This report, however, is wrongly entered for 1546 and not, as it should be, for 1547, although he cannot have written it before 1547. He may have entered the date 1547 somewhat too late in the text, when continuing with the vicissitudes of the Doesburg house. In the year 1547 the Brothers in the house were the same ‘as above’ (1546). The last author may have personally experienced the events of 1547, but not all the preceding ones. We must thus either assume that there was more than one writer, or take it that the one and last writer made use of the comprehensive notes in the house dealing with internal happenings, and also perhaps covering what was going on outside. If he did learn of the latter from outside sources, their inclusion in the chronicle or annals indicates some connection with the house. The house indeed frequently felt the repercussions of the activities of the Dukes of Gelre, of the city corporation and of the scarcity and high price of foodstuffs and other things. It seems to me then, that we can distinguish two authors, one working up to 1485-1490 and a second who must be responsible for the report of 1493. This first writer may well have been Theodoric of Sittard, who died in 1497 and is then called a magistralis scriptor; one who plura scripsit super omnes fratres istius temporis.² Theodoric of Sittard was the third rector, and head of

1 Quoted here according to the pages of the MS.

2 Chronicle 200.

[p. 384]

the house from 1473 to 1485. He was already mentioned in 1443 among the clerici of the house of Doesburg.¹

One characteristic of the second writer is that he always begins his annual report by stating which fraters formed part of the Doesburg house or congregation at that particular time, whether they actually lived in the house or were out working with the Sisters.² Another is that he renders the concept of dying among the Brothers by expressions reminiscent of the Humanists, which are not employed by the first writer: ad superos migravit,³ or: ultimum exsufflavit spiritum victurus in evum⁴ or: sed raptus est ad superos.⁵ He also quotes the Holy Scriptures in his annals. These characteristics, however, disappear again, so that it would seem that another writer followed the second. However this may be, the annals make a reliable impression because the authors make no attempt to conceal the less pleasant circumstances. In this chapter I shall refer only to the first section of the annals, insofar as they concern the period under discussion here. In cases where the exact meaning is in doubt, in this case for the question of the school, I have had recourse to the later texts to elucidate the problem.

The foundation developed quite well from the very beginning. The first rector, Gerard of Rees, (1432-1443), turned to agricultural work as a main source of income. However, the Brothers considered this contrary to the purpose of their movement and lodged a complaint with the visitatores. This led to Gerard's dismissal in 1443 and the appointment of Henry of Grave (1443-1473).

Henry and his successors must have again fallen back upon writing to provide the Brothers' manual work, but it is remarkable how little the annals have to say on this point. With the exception of the text quoted, this copying of books is mentioned only once, although it is evident from statements made by the procurator that a profit was made from this writing. The fraters soon obtained three vicarages in the church which, together with the masses founded, required several priests. It is noteworthy therefore that the number of priests soon exceeded that of the clerici or student priests. This was in contrast to the Zwolle Brotherhouse. There were in Doesburg in 1440, two priests and four clerici,⁶ in 1443 three priests and seven clerici,⁷ and in

1 Chronicle, 74. The last sentence may mean something entirely different, i.e. that he wrote or copied more than all the fraters of his time.

2 Ibid., 18.

3 Ibid., 82.

4 Ibid., 84.

5 Ibid., 86.

6 Ibid., 103.

7 Ibid., 12.

[p. 385]

1468 five priests and three clerici.¹ By 1493 there were sixteen priests of whom six lodged near the Sistershouses, and only six clerici.² This ratio was maintained up to the end of the house at Doesburg.

The position in Doesburg was the same as we have already noted elsewhere. Those who entered as clerici may be considered as student priests; in the ordinary course of events they later became priests. It is possible to show this by taking one generation as example. In 1443³ the following seven are mentioned as clerics: Henry of Goch, who is later found working as a confessor in Cleves;⁴ Gerard of Tiel, who soon retired; Mathias of Zutphen, who was later confessor to the Sisters of Heusden;⁵ John of Millingen, later confessor in Maastricht;⁶ John of Doetinchem, who receives no further mention; Bitteres of Doetinchem, later confessor in Elten.⁷ Theodoric of Sittard became rector. Five of the seven clerici thus became priests. There is no mention of their training or study. It is not even said that several of these entered from the city schools, although this must indeed have been the case. According to reports in the chronicle, some of them zealously studied the Holy Scriptures, in default of a teaching staff.⁸ These zealous students included Theodoric of Urdingen and the rector Henry of Grave.⁹ The latter made such progress that in the eyes of the Brothers, and notably of the chroniclers, he attained the status of an expert in theology. He had undertaken various philosophical investigations. He even became competent in Roman and Canon Law, while continuing to acquit himself honourably as a farmer and carpenter.¹⁰ This person, however, who resembled the most talented and generally gifted of Italian Humanists, seems not to have done himself justice. He did not leave so much as one letter. The Doesburg fraters, like those of Deventer and Zwolle, had no university studies. Theodoric of Kampen admittedly had spent some time at university before joining the Brotherhood, but the chronicler has this to say of him: ‘He was not afflicted with those faults which commonly distinguish that sort of person. He did not follow either the customs or the boastful habits of the students.’¹¹ What a gap separated these Brothers from the university and from higher study in general!

What was the position regarding the school and the attitude of the

1 Chrouicle, 18.

2 Ibid., 44.

3 Ibid., 18.

4 Ibid., 19.

5 Ibid., 19.

6 Ibid., 20.

7 Ibid., 27.

8 Ibid., 4.

9 Ibid., 49, 54.

10 Ibid., 54.

11 Ibid., 42.

[p. 386]

students towards the city school? We know the situation in Deventer and Zwolle- there were one or more hostels run by the fraters. The pupils of these institutions attended the city schools, and one or other of the fraters helped them with their schoolwork in the hostel. For the rest the Brothers carried out pastoral duties among the schoolboys.

The scanty accounts of the educational activities of the Doesburg fraters are not entirely clear. Since the question is important I shall first mention all reports, including those of the 16th century. In 1459 Reinier of Kessel returned to the Brotherhouse in Doesburg from the convent in Doetinchem, where the Sisters would not obey him. Here he lovingly devoted himself in a praiseworthy manner to attracting the schoolboys.¹ In 1465 the annalist writes: ‘In that period the school teaching flourished fairly well (satis competenter) and many boys came from all parts. The fraters laboured amongst them faithfully and fruitfully, so that very many were sent out to various places and monastic orders through the zeal and devotion of the fraters, while the Lord helped in all things and confirmed the sermon (sermonem confirmanti).’² Statements like this, which we have met before, refer to the fraters' activities among all schoolboys who were willing to join them. They showed, yet again, that they had nothing against monasteries. There is no doubt either that the school in question is the city school (which was also the parochial school). Now follow years of plague, of storms, of attacks by the Duke of Cleves on the city of Doesburg and its destruction: tunc scola nostra dispersa est et scolares effugati,³ ‘then our school was destroyed and our scholars dispersed.’ In 1469 the fraters had to start again from the beginning. It was a quiet time for them: they had no school (scola) and were not distracted by the pupils' visits as they usually were.⁴ One might suppose from this that the fraters had their own school and that its loss was something extraordinary. It seems to be a normal thing in Doesburg for the Brothers to have their own school. And yet, I cannot help feeling that the institution referred to here is a hostel, not a school proper. Since boys lived and had lessons in such a hostel or domus pauperum, the chronicler may also have termed this building a school. This building (scola) was later closed once again. It is thus that in 1490 the fraters did their best to restore the domus pauperum scolarium, the house of the poor schoolboys, which had stood empty for some years as a result of wars and general catastrophes. They took in a few boys in the hope of reaching the

1 Chronicle, 25.

2 Ibid., 28.

3 Ibid., 34.

4 Ibid., 46.

[p. 387]

parents through the children. They also accepted Gerlach of Rossum as a novice, so that he might help the boys of that house in their school subjects (nt exerceret pro iuvenibus ipsius domus in scolasticalibus).¹ It is not quite clear which house is here referred to: the domus pauperum or the Brotherhouse. In my opinion it is the former. This Gerlach of Rossum unfortunately died in 1496, but the chronicler honours him as the teacher of the pious schoolboys (the boys who lived with the fraters, the young pupils who might be called ‘little clerics,’ clericorum scolarium instructor.) He credits him with an exceptional talent for teaching.² The pupils referred to here are those who lived in the domus pauperum and who received some tuition from the young clerici. The school of Doesburg was something entirely different. One of its rectors was Livinus of Middelburg who had arrived in Doesburg with the Zwolle fraters. In the Brotherhouse documents he is called Livinus van Middelborch, rector quondum scolae Doesburgensis. It was he who made over his house, with garden and courtyard, to the poor scholars in 1456. Like similar foundations elsewhere, this house received its own income to be spent on the poor pupils. There is finally the privilege of bishop David of Burgundy (dated 23rd April 1478) whereby the bishop amortised the property of the Brotherhouse and took it under his protection, but also gave the fraters permission to administer the Sacraments to all the schoolboys studying in Doesburg. Here again mention is made of the general school and of the fraters' pastoral task among all schoolboys. This explanation of the somewhat ambiguous terms means that the situation was exactly the same as that in Deventer, Zwolle and 's-Hertogenbosch and which we shall also find elsewhere: alongside the city school there was the fraters' hostel. If the scola nostra is to be considered a proper school, it must be remembered that it can only have been a very small one. This hostel or domus pauperum which, as we saw, was restored by the Brothers in 1490, is mentioned once more in the important decree of 1571 whereby the congregation was abolished and the Brothers made vicars of the Doesburg church. The domus pauperum, increased by four bursarii would, just as in 1490, be placed under the youngest of the Brothers. Had the Brothers possessed a school in addition to this domus pauperum, it would also have had to be liquidated in 1571, or destined for a particular purpose, or at least mentioned.³ From the fact that it is not mentioned, one may deduce that it did not exist and never had existed.

1 Chronicle, 76.

2 Ibid., 84.

3 Ibid., 293.

[p. 388]

The annalist has the custom of naming all the Brothers according to their place of origin, although some of them also appear to have other names. We are thus in a position to see from what places the novices came. There were candidates from Nijmegen, Zaltbommel, Calcar, Rees, Maesbommel, Doesburg, Kessel, Netterden, Antwerp, Deventer, Grave, Groet, Emmerich, Tiel, Goch, Doetinchem, Drempt, Wageningen, Zutphen, Millingen, Sittard, Groenlo, Coesveld, Cleves, Ahrwilre, Kempen, Berg, Horn, Dusseldorf, Bocholt, Delden, Krefeld, Zwolle, Haelen, Heusden, Elten, Utrecht, Nijkerk, Westervoort, Lochem, Xanten, Oldenzaal, Rossum, etc. Most of the novices come from places around Doesburg which now belong to Germany, like Bocholt, Emmerich, Rees, Xanten, Goch, Kempen, Krefeld. These also provided young men for the houses of Zwolle and Deventer.

The task of these Brothers and notably of the priests among them, was of a priestly nature. They served vicarages and were spiritual directors of schoolboys and Sisters. For some time the Doesburg fraters were responsible for the convents of Cleves, Zaltbommel, Maastricht, the two convents of Doesburg and for Doetinchem, Rees, Wamel, Elten, Duisburg, Huissen and Sion. In several of these they did not retain their function for long. One could say that this work was somewhat on the decline in the 16th century. In 1493 they served six Sisterhouses, in 1501 five, and in 1523 only two.¹ This decline in the 16th century is not to be attributed to lack of priests, but more usually to chance circumstances, such as competition by other clergy or incompatibility. Some were relieved of their function by the visitator. This, however, belongs to the following period.

The income of the house increased, usually as a result of gifts or bequests and church benefices and foundations. As regards these latter, the Brotherhouse in no way differed from the monasteries or parish churches. The rectors of Doesburg tried to maintain the customs of the fraters, and very little relaxation of the rules can be detected for this period. There were, however, a few crises, in which the visitatores had to intervene. Their intervention, however, did not always produce the desired result, as in 1443 when the Brothers were dissatisfied about the farm work they were given to do. The rector was dismissed and had to content himself with an annuity and the rectorship of the convent of St. Catherine in Doesburg.² The new rector, elected by the Brothers, was not recognized by the colloquium in Zwolle,

1 Chronicle, 31, 46.

2 Ibid., 16.

[p. 389]

so that a new election had to be held under the direction of the visitatores. This resulted in the appointment of another young man, Henry of Grave.¹ In 1483 the building of a church with three altars in the new Brotherhouse led to a quarrel with the pastor and municipality.² In 1469, the Doesburg fraters provided one of their members for the post of rector in the Brotherhouse at Amersfoort.³ If this was an honour, the summons of the procurator, Gerard of Berch, to Zutphen and his sudden transfer to the Dominicans, made quite an impression. The annalist takes care to mention that the man was soon stricken by remorse and died shortly afterwards.⁴

In 1485 however, there was again tension between the Brothers and rector, Theodoric of Sittard. The Brothers called in the visitator to help, with the result that the rector was dismissed.⁵ The exact nature of the dispute is not mentioned. When the deposed rector died, a few years later, the annalist praised him as an industrious man with a great love for the house, who was happiest in his cell.

It is a remarkable fact that on several occasions, the frater-confessors of a house of Sisters of the Common Life persuaded these to adopt a monastic rule. The ex-rector Gerard of Rees, for example, confessor in the convent of St. Catherine in Doesburg, had the Sisters adopt the Third Order of St. Francis around 1445.⁶ Similarly, frater Theodoric of Emmerich in 1468 persuaded the sisters of Doetinchem to adopt the rule of St. Augustine and the clausura.⁷ The same Brother Theodoric also brought about the introduction of the clausura in the Sion convent,⁸ and Bitter of Doetinchem the acceptance of the rule of St. Augustine, with lausura, in Elten (1504).⁹ In 1459 the fraters John of Rees and in 1478 Peter of Hoen left the fraters and were received into monasteries of the Third Order.¹⁰

The trek to the monastery still continued. In 1464 the rector Henry of Grave (1443-1473) made an attempt to join the Canons Regular of the Windesheim congregation, taking the whole of the Brotherhouse with him. He received the consent of all the Brothers, who gave their signatures to this effect. They had already received the bishop's permission, but in the end this move was prevented by Count Adolf and the municipality.¹¹ The affair came to the ears of the rector and

1 Chronicle, 17.

2 Ibid., 29.

3 Ibid., 68.

4 Ibid., 48.

5 Ibid., 71.

6 Ibid., 16.

7 Ibid., 39.

8 Ibid., 90.

9 Ibid., 94.

10 Ibid., 37, 38.

11 Ibid., 37, 38.

[p. 390]

Brothers of the houses of Deventer and Zwolle, and caused them considerable astonishment and annoyance. They had had great confidence in Henry. The annalist makes no mention of the intervention by Egbert ter Beek, rector of the house of Deventer. This reproached the prior-superior of the Windesheim congregation with this activity in Doesburg. However, he could not entirely disapprove of the affair and so fell back on an incidental matter. He alleged that in this manner the congregation of Windesheim was depriving the Brotherhood of its buildings and property. This he considered to be against the law of charity.¹

This leaving the house and transferring to other orders may be considered as normal among the Brothers, who took no vows. On the other hand, this agitation for a monastic rule shows that the initial enthusiasm of the fraters for the distinctive quality of their institution was no longer such as we found it in Deventer and Zwolle. It appears, however, that the lectio, oratio and compunctio still existed, as in the time of Florens Radewijns, so that the principal means of keeping alive their inner devotion were still being practised.²

We know very little in this period concerning the history of the Groningen Brotherhouse at the Martini cemetery, the third founded by Henry of Herxen between 1342 and 1346.³ According to an Act dated 1478, it possessed, at a short distance from the Brotherhouse, a hostel

1 Dumbar Analecta I 174-175.

2 Chronicle of Doesburg 86.

3 The undated document, which is sometimes considered as the draft for the letter of foundation, and then again as the draft of the rules, appears to me to be neither. Characteristic of this document is the fear of the parish priests and the municipality on the one hand that the Brothers would violate the church rights of certain officials, and on the other that there would be an increase in the number of monasteries in the city, thus adding to the number of properties held in mortmain. This latter is especially typical of the Dutch cities in the 15th century. The church and civic authorities thus set out their requirements: no building expansion, no increase in the number of members, of the right of succession, of property held in mortmain, of privileges, of capital (only personal estate) brought in by children of the city. These points were made with regard to monasteries in many places, and must not be attributed to a sort of anti-clericalism. The emphasis was rather on the welfare of the small city of the time, so full of religious institutions. The document contains no privilege, nor does it impart any particular rights. Its purpose is rather to define what may not be done. It may have been put before the Brothers on their arrival, or have been composed later. It was never, however, legally binding. It will have been intended to impress upon the Brothers that they must keep to the city regulations concerning religious institutions and property, even though they were not monastics.

[p. 391]

(St. Jansstraat), a domus pauperum, in which live ‘arme clarcken ende kinderen’ (poor clerks and boys). As in Deventer, Zwolle and Doesburg, it was under the direction of a procurator.¹ This hostel was to have an important future. Soon it also admitted paying scholars, so that the buildings had to be extended in 1511. The peculiar circumstances prevailing in the domain of education, i.e. the existence of two parish schools, made it possible for the Groningen fraters to begin their own school, which achieved quite a considerable reputation. But such an undertaking was not yet envisaged, as will be indicated in the following period.

The declaration by the municipality (12th February 1566) that the property of the house was originally destined for the training and education of young people, as a ‘seminari der heijlligen kirke,’² (a seminary of the holy church) lends weight to the assumption that the domus pauperum too was principally intended for the training of the clergy. The Brothers were especially concerned with the pastoral care of the pupils in general. William of Groningen, the first rector, was particularly renowned for his collations, so much so indeed, that on the occasion of the colloquium in Zwolle, he held a powerful ‘collation’ for the schoolboys there.³

At their foundation or shortly afterwards, the two houses in 's-Hertogenbosch received the same statutes as Zwolle. This is clear from a comparison of the surviving documents.⁴ They will thus have desired to live and act like their Brothers in Zwolle and did in fact keep to the essence of the statutes. One must hereby remember that the Brothers living in the Sisterhouse of ten Orthen formed a brotherhood sui generis, having for example no contact with the school and very little with the schoolboys. The company consisted of a few Brothers, whose task

1 E.H. Roelfsema, De fraters en het fraterbuis te Groningen, Groningen Volksalmanak 1920, 24. A.T. Schuytema Meyer, Het fraterhuis in de St. Jansstraat te Groningen, Gron. Volksalmanak 1950, 15. R. van Dellen, Van Prefectenhof tot Prinsenhof, 1947, 76-142.

2 Bijdragen tot de geschiedenis ... Groningen VI (1869) 19, v. Dellen, 121.

3 Schoengen 101.

4 Those of the two houses in 's-Hertogenbosch are published in Analecta Gysberti Coeverincx, II, but in such a way that the documents belonging to each house are combined. Moreover the edition is not complete. Several questions which are regulated in the Zwolle status are not copied by G. Coeverincx. What remains, however, is the same, word for word, as the Zwolle statutes, apart from the odd line or couple of lines which were either not adopted, were added later in the Zwolle version, or were missed by the copyist.

[p. 392]

was the spiritual care of the Sisters and who lived a communal life among themselves, inspired and supervised by the rector. The Zwolle statutes remained their model and ideal. This Brotherhouse continued to exist as such after the Council of Trent, and no real change was made in the institution at the Reformation of 1585.¹

The house founded in the Hinthamerstraat in 1424-1425 may be considered as the real Brotherhouse of 's-Hertogenbosch, and its attitude towards the school, teaching and education during the period under discussion merits our attention. This institution is all the more interesting since, towards the end of this period, Erasmus lived and studied in 's-Hertogenbosch. Most of his biographers, including the local ones, have him attending the city school, which however, was, in their opinion, under the direction of the Brothers. Either that or the Brothers taught there.

The school in 's-Hertogenbosch was originally linked with the parish church of St. John. It already existed before the chapter was founded in 1366. In 1399 it had passed to the city, at least temporarily. Throughout the 15th and 16th centuries municipality and chapter disputed the so-called school right, the scholastria, which included, among other things, the right of appointing the rector.² According to a visitation report of 1573, the Canons were competely in charge of the school of 's-Hertogenbosch.³

The 's-Hertogenbosch school was certainly not in the hands of the fraters before 1573. That they were not in charge of the school is made plain by, among other things, a will of Jacob of Ostayen, dated 1561⁴ in which a distinction is made between the ‘meester van de scole’ (the master of the school) and the pater or frater. The Brothers, who as we saw, had done no academic studies, were not especially suited to teach at the city or chapter school. Sufficient is known of most of the school teachers mentioned by Schutjens as fraters, to make it clear that they were never members of the Fraternity. Details of their careers are gleaned from their activities elsewhere, and from a comparison with the names of the fraters of 's-Hertogenbosch professed

1 Analecta, II 121.

2 R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs in Nederland gedurende de Middeleeuwen, Utrecht 1954, 52.

3 R. Post, De visitatie van de St. Janskerk te 's-Hertogenbosch, Archief katholieke kerk in Nederland 4 (1962) 23-24.

4 A. van der Does de Willebois, Studiebeursen II 263.

[p. 393]

in the 16th century. A list of their names has survived.¹ It was only at the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th that certain fraters taught in the city school. These abnormal circumstances were occasioned by the decrees of pope Pius V, by the Reformation, and by the war, all of which will be discussed in due course.

There was thus no direct connection between the fraters, the school and teaching, in the sense that they neither directed the school of 's-Hertogenbosch, nor taught in it during the period under discussion, that is, from 1425 to roughly 1485.

However, on the basis of the statutes adopted from Zwolle, it may be assumed that, like the Brothers in Zwolle, they undertook the spiritual care of the schoolboys.² It is at the same time certain that a domus pauperum scolarium existed around 1450. This was a house in the Schilderstraat, under the direction of the fraters. Evidence for this is provided by a charter dated July 28th, 1501, in which Jan of Hoorn, bishop of Liège, confirmed the foundation established by Gerard de Heer, fifty years before.³ According to this document, the boys admitted to this house were under the direction of the rector of the Brothers, and were obliged to obey him. The rector might also appoint one or more deputies. The boys attended the city school. The house was intended for the use of a few poor scholars who attended the school. There seems to be no real reason why this school could not have been within the house. However, since there was usually only one school in any city, that is, the one big school, for the teaching of the time, for Latin, it was so understood by everybody. The clause concerning attendance at the scolae (really classes) must mean that the boys had to attend the city school, the school which was the same as that of the parish or the chapter. If the reference had been to a school within the house, this would have had to be indicated more clearly, since it would have been something out of the ordinary. That the hostel boys of the domus pauperum did indeed attend the city school, is expressly stated in a letter by the aldermen dated February 6th 1485,⁴ precisely in the year of Erasmus' stay in 's-Hertogenbosch. This document confirmed the granting of certain goods for the benefit of the pupils who attended the city school and lived in the domus pauperum

1 L.H.C. Schutjens, Geschiedenis van het bisdom 's-Hertogenbosch, IV, 1873, 408-411, 412. Analecta Gijsberti Coeverincx II, 115.

2 Compare Statutes in Gijsb. Coeverincx, II 100 and 101.

3 A. Miraeus, Opera Diplomatica IV, 451.

4 A. van der Does de Willebois, II 260. Original Rijksarchief at 's-Hertogenbosch.

[p. 394]

of the fraters: ‘ad opus pauperum fratrum, scolas in opido Buscoducis frequentantium, habitantium in hereditate olim domini Ludolphi van de Wale’ (that is, the domus pauperum founded by Gerard Heer). And so it remained. When the afore mentioned Jacob of Ostayen founded a bursary in the fraters' hostel on Dec. 5th 1561, he stated: This schoolboy shall attend the big school within the city.¹ When Arnold of Esch founded a bursary in the same house on August 7th 1609, he decreed that only three of the pupils might avail of it, who have learned so much in the school that they might be accepted after the custom of the domus pauperum.² School and hostels were evidently two distinct institutions. Having once established this, our opinion is confirmed in the Vita of Nicolas Eschius, compiled around 1580 by A. Janssen: Translata jam pueritia, missus ad scolam Buscoducensem, habitavit in domo fratrum ut vocantur S. Hieronymi.³ Attendance at the city school of 's-Hertogenbosch and living with the fraters, are two separate things.

Judging by what we have already seen in Deventer, Zwolle and Doesburg we may assume that the 's-Hertogenbosch hostel or domus pauperum usually included, besides a procurator (and cook), a brother whose task was to help the boys with their studies. This was a sort of repetitor who went over what the boys had learnt in the various classes at school. The term repetitor is indeed found in the decree dealing with the domus pauperum, as it occurs under number 21 in the new statutes given to the fraternity on January 22 1573 by bishop Laurence Metz when the measures taken by Pope Pius V seemed about to lead to its disappearance.⁴ Item ad scholam quod attinet, ut uterque juventutis rector, tam in docendo et repetendo, quam in observando et corrigendo, diligenter institutum atque legum domus rationem habeat utque eorum unus coram dicta scholastica juventute e scholis egressa statutis diebus celebret, et alter eamdem interim observet et in officio pio detineat.

Two persons are at the head of the house; one is the repetitor, the teacher; the other is the duty-master, the man who keeps order. The latter's duties even included supervising the boys when they heard Mass, usually after having already attended lessons at school in the morning from 6 till 8. The hour from 8 to 9 was usually left free in

1 Van der Does, II 263: ‘Die welche scholier sal fregmenteren inne der grooten scole binnen derselven stadt.’

2 Ibid., 277. ‘sooveel geleert zullen hebben in de scholen datsi nae de costuymen van het pauperhuis ontfangen mogen worden.’

3 A. Janssens, Vita Nic. Eschii, ed. P.F.H. de Ram, Leuven 1858.

4 Analecta Gijsberti Coeverincx, II 120.

[p. 395]

the medieval schools in order to allow the priest-teachers, often possessors of a vicarage, to fulfil their duties as vicar. This report is rather late, but the same situation must also have existed earlier, since these two persons were indispensable in a hostel of any size. There are indeed references to them elsewhere.

Before examining now how Erasmus's statement concerning his stay in 's-Hertogenbosch corresponds to the situation as we have described it, two further points must be made. Firstly, that the Brothers of 's-Hertogenbosch, like those of other houses, used these hostels to recruit members for their congregation and for various orders, and secondly, that in 's-Hertogenbosch too they carried out pastoral work among the other schoolboys, i.e., those who did not live in their house. They preached to them and administered the sacraments. This last point accords with the statutes, but for both we have only later reports. These, however, can be said to apply also to the former situation. The fact that the house was destined for such aspirant monastics, either brothers or priests, accords well with the clause in the already quoted will of Jacob of Ostayen of Zudert (1561: a future Dominican received free board and lodgings with the fraters).¹

For the same reason Arnold of Esch founded three bursaries (August 7th 1609) considering that ‘this period requires learned men in the Holy Church as pastors, and other men and priests for the maintenance of the divine offices.’² It was thus also reasonable that this house in 's-Hertogenbosch should be transformed into a seminary, as happened elsewhere.³ Concerning the Brothers' pastoral duties: at the visitation of the chapter of St. John by bishop Francis Sonnius, in 1568, Canon Coolen expressed his desire to restore the old custom of leading the entire company of schoolboys on Sunday afternoons in procession to the Brothers' house, or to another suitable place, for them to hear a sermon.⁴

Finally there is the question of Erasmus' stay and study in 's-Hertogenbosch. We have to determine if what he himself says of it corresponds with what we have described and if so, to what extent? Apart from the fact that Erasmus generally does not try to hide his

1 A. van der Does de Willebois, Studiebeursen II, 263.

2 Ibid., 277. ‘dezen tijt vereyscht gheleerde mannen in de H. Kercke tot pastoriën en andere heeren ende priestern tot onderhoudingh van goddelijcke diensten.’

3 Analecta, Gijsb. Coeverincx II, 133.

4 Archief ... van de katholieke Kerk in Nederland 4 (1962) 24.

[p. 396]

dislike of the so-called ‘bij scholen,’¹ private school enterprises which could compete with the official city schools, and of the institution of the fraters as such,² he writes, in the well known tendentious letter of 1516 to the curia official Grunnius, describing his stay with the fraters in 's-Hertogenbosch.³ His intention in writing this letter was to obtain permission to wear non-monastic dress. Having read the study of R. Crahay, I consider the compendium vitae, which also refers to the stay in 's-Hertogenbosch, as an unauthentic document, probably composed around the middle of the 16th century in the circles associated with Peter Winckel.⁴ These persons naturally knew from experience the relationship between hostel and school as it existed in various cities. It might thus be possible to use this falsified compendium vitae as a new source for Erasmus. First, we shall deal with Erasmus' own letter. He writes in 1516 that on leaving Deventer he was fully ready for the university, since he had learnt sufficient Latin and the greater part of the logic book of Petrus Hispanus. He also refers to the spread of the Brothers and to their efforts to earn money by teaching (instituendis).⁵ We have not yet seen any examples of this, and indeed, it is scarcely correct for this period, although it might apply to conditions in 1516. He considered his years in 's-Hertogenbosch as a waste of time, since he knew more than the teachers (preceptores). There were two of them in the school, but he continues... ‘unus praeceptorum talis erat, etc..., alter vero qui...’⁶

That there were two persons in charge (of teaching) accords with what we have deduced from the decrees of bishop Metz. One of the teachers-continued Erasmus-was the most stupid and selfsatisfied man Erasmus had ever met. His like were often appointed, ‘for they are not chosen for their erudition, but according to the whim of the rector who is himself unlettered.’ The other teacher seemed to be particularly pleased by Erasmus' talent. When he saw that Erasmus wished to return to his native city, he began to play upon the young man's conscience in order to bind him to their institution. This he

1 Erasmus, Opera omnia I 504 D, 921D-922B.

2 Ibid., I 921F-922A.

3 P.S. Allen, Opus epistolarum, Des. Erasmi Roterodami, no. 447, deel II p. 295.

4 Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance 6 (1939) 135-153. E.W. Kohls, Das Geburtsjahr des Erasmus. Theol. Zeitschrift ... Basel 22 (1966) 100-102. R. Post, Ibid., 319-333. Kohls, 347-359.

5 P.S. Allen, Opus epistolarum Des. Erasmi, Deel II no. 447, 2-102.

6 Ibid., p. 296, r. 120 vlg.

[p. 397]

did in private conversation by mentioning many things which appeal to children.

Erasmus later expressed regret that he had not agreed. Since the Brothers were not bound by vows he would have been easily able to leave. He continues his description of this teacher's efforts to win him over, but the latter finally desisted.

The unauthentic compendium vitae mentions only one teacher and calls him Romboldus. This may be considered accurate insofar as one of the directors was more concerned with teaching while the other had a supervisory task which included providing for the material needs of the house and its inmates. Like the author of the letter to Grunnius, the writer of the compendium vitae is of the opinion that Erasmus was ready for the university on leaving Deventer, since he had already reached the third class in 1483. This statement, which shows that the falsificator was well acquainted with conditions in the late medieval schools, is important for us since it follows that officially, and perhaps also in fact, Erasmus could not indeed learn anything more at the school in 's-Hertogenbosch, which had no higher class than third. He had after all completed the curriculum of the usual five classes (7-3) in Deventer, and his fellow students went from the same third class to the university. That this was also the case later appears from a bursary founded by Canon Burghardt van den Bergh.¹ Erasmus, however, was placed in the hostel of the Brothers in Den Bosch. As was customary, the other boys in the hostel attended the school in the city, but there was no point at all in Erasmus doing this. He could better stay at home and try to make some progress with the aid of the house repetitor. However, as he later writes, he was extremely unfortunate in this, since the repetitor of that time was a stupid and complacent person. Erasmus will certainly have exaggerated the poor man's defects, but it is indeed very probable that his knowledge of Latin exceeded that of his teacher. We must thus conclude that, in his letter to Grunnius, Erasmus did not give a completely false account of the existing state of affairs, and also that the writer of the compendium vitae did not take many liberties with history on this point. It follows from this that Erasmus stayed with the Brothers in the 's-Hertogenbosch hostel in the years 1485-1487, that is in the years which saw the rise of Humanism in the Netherlands. During this period he had some private tuition from a Brother who

1 R.R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs, etc. 103, M.A. Nauwelaerts, Erasmus en de latijnse school van 's-Hertogenbosch. Miscellanea P.J.M. van Gils 449-458.

[p. 398]

was in no way trained for this task and possessed no talent for it either. The masters of the 's-Hertogenbosch school will not have been much better, but Erasmus had no dealings with them since he had already completed or nearly completed in Deventer all the classes which the school in 's-Hertogenbosch had to offer.

Another report, dated January 10th 1469, also falls within this period in the history of the Brotherhouse of 's-Hertogenbosch. In this the Apostolic legate, Onofrio Sewer, bishop of Troyes, at the request of the Brotherhouses of 's-Hertogenbosch, Gent, Brussels and Geraardsbergen, gives permission to apply in their house and church certain privileges granted to the Brotherhouses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel by pope Eugenius IV, and now placed under the name of popes Martin V, Eugenius IV, Nicolas V, Calixtus III and Pius II. With this report is associated a document of March 22nd 1469 by the executor, putting into effect the preceding Bull, or at least making it known to the houses in question.¹ This was the privilege of transforming the Brotherhouse chapels into collegial churches, and elevating the Brothers to the rank of Canon, so that their house would then be a chapter. It is indeed this privilege which was offered to Münster in Rome in 1439, which the legate Nicolas of Cusa proposed to the Deventer Brotherhouse in 1451 and which now, in 1469, was granted to four Brotherhouses at once as something attractive and worth having. I very much doubt if this privilege was granted at the request of the rectors, or even that it was really put into practice. However, doubtful as the whole matter may be, we must bear it in mind. It is certainly of importance in the more easterly houses and will also come under discussion when we are dealing with Amersfoort.

We know very little in this period of the Brotherhouse at Harderwijk. The initiative for its foundation came from the magistrate of Harderwijk in 1441 and it was probably definitely established in 1442. We do know for certain, however, that the house went through a very difficult period under its first rector Godfried of Kempen. Although he succeeded in attracting a few suitable youths as clerici or lay brothers, the house was not financially sound, nor had it sufficient novices.² The position was so bad that Godfried finally handed over his task to someone else and returned to Zwolle. However, like the fraters of the two houses of 's-Hertogenbosch, he and the few Brothers who

1 A. Miraeus, Opera diplomatica. IV 442, 443.

2 Schoengen, 100.

[p. 399]

helped him begin the foundation, will have taken the statutes of the Zwolle house with them to Harderwijk and have applied them so far as was possible.

It appears from the available data that the city school already existed before the Brothers' arrival. The magistrates and city council also continued in control of the school during the following years of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. They appointed and paid the rector, decided the school fees and approved the curriculum.¹ In the period under discussion the Brothers had nothing at all to do with the teaching in the school. True, they probably kept a hostel for the schoolboys, but this is only mentioned in the documents for the first time on September 2nd 1528.² It was then called the small clerks' house Since it was already flourishing at this time it is not unreasonable to assume that it had come into existence much earlier.

There is also a manuscript, originating from the Brotherhouse of Harderwijk, which was written by Cornelius Vianen in 1503 and has been edited by W. Jappe Alberts.³ This document, which is classified under the consuetudines, although the editor points out that it is not, in fact, a consuetudo, may throw some light upon the devotion in the Harderwijk house at the moment when the person in question was noting down his resolution or way of life. This must thus have been either in 1503 or before it. It is not possible to judge whether the manuscript was actually composed by Cornelius Vianen. He may have copied it from another who lived and wrote earlier. In any case I feel justified in using this document in order to describe the spirit prevailing in the house of Harderwijk (or even in any of the other Brotherhouses), at the end of this period. The document does not list the statutes of a Brotherhouse, nor does it codify its customs. It is rather a personal statement of the author's activities.

A Brother sets down how he will try to follow the prescribed order of the day. He says that he will perform every action with intense devotion and consciously direct every deed-rising, praying, working, eating,-to God. This is putting into practice, or at least the good intention of putting into practice, the ideals of the Modern Devotionalists. His devotions are not solely inward, they are rather and more

1 Het oud-archief der Gemeente Harderwijk, by P. Berend, 2de stuk, 1935. Reg. 213, 243, 263, 287, 316 etc.

2 Ibid., Reg. 624.

3 Fontes minores medii aevi, VIII, published by the Institute for Medieval History at Utrecht, 1959.

[p. 400]

frequently outward, in the sense that certain prayers, certain formulas are employed, but in such a way that the inner man is completely involved. The precise intention of these prayers, which are sometimes only ejaculations, is to keep alive or revive the original good intention. This attempt on the part of one Brother characterizes the ideals of the Modern Devotionalists more clearly and more significantly than the statutes, or even the pious writings of the ascetic authors, which have been dealt with up to now. Here is the devout life in practice! The document moreover to some extent supplements the Brothers' order of the day as previously indicated, and is also important for what it does not contain. There is, for example, no time set aside for methodical meditation. It can thus be assumed that this did not yet exist, although in fact meditation went on throughout the entire day. This was the so-called ruminatio.

The writer first notes what prayers and aspirations he can say on waking, getting up and dressing, in order to direct his soul to God.¹ The hour for rising is not mentioned, but it must have been four o'clock, since the first ceremonies, matins and prime, are taken to be already over at five. When the Brother is dressed, he goes to the chapel and meditates, reflecting on some subject in preparation for matins. Various examples are given of how he might do this, for instance pondering on the words: Psallite Deo nostro, psallite, in which prayer the word psallite occurs five times. The Brother then can reflect on the five reasons for which he should praise God presently during matins. There are other possibilities, but one remark adds a human touch: ‘While you are thinking on this, you must not grow annoyed if others arrive a little late, even after matins have begun.’² This meditation can be brief or prolonged, depending on the amount of time you have. The matins, like all the other hours, begin with the Our Father. The Brother indicates what reflections this must arouse before and after the hours. Before: the hallowing of God's name; after: the forgiveness of our trespasses. Each of the hours has other preparatory prayers of which the Brother mentions the first words here: Domine labia; Deus in adjutorium; converte nos. These words offer matter for reflection. The first indicates shortcomings in pronouncing the prayer; the second implores God's help in prayer, and converte nos Deus which introduces the couplets, incites to remorse over the short-comings of the day. So also the conclusion; te Deum laudamus. The bow-

1 Consuetudines 14, 16.

2 Ibid., 15.

[p. 401]

ing of the head at the Gloria Patri can arouse the attention and is necessary in order to gain the indulgences. He also suggests what certain prayers of the matins may mean, especially the closing prayer. This is to be supplemented by a prayer of thanksgiving during the first week after a communion.¹

From five to six: Read in your cell.

Then follows half an hour of writing (6-6.30) for which the Brother must prepare himself with a prayer and decide how he must write (accurately, useful matters, and that which arouses compunction). At half past 6 the bell is rung for Mass. The praying of the terce and above all meditation on the last psalm on the way to the chapel, serves as preparation for devout attendance at Mass. He gives in detail the various thoughts which must be aroused at the various parts and prayers of the Mass, and also at the end and during the return by way of the cemetery.² After Mass the Brother reads the sext and recommences writing from eight till ten o'clock.

A prayer follows the bell for the midday meal (10 o'clock) and even the rosary may be said,³ but the main concern is to what he should direct his thoughts during grace and the reading aloud. After the meal he will pray the nones of Our Lady and of the Cross. He can then rest for half an hour, from half past eleven until twelve. This rest is preceded and followed by a prayer.

Writing follows from twelve to three, with a short prayer at one and two o'clock. At three o'clock preparation for vespers in the chapel, with an indication of his subject matter for reflection during the prayers, and notably during the confiteor. After vespers he can study in his cell, then come two hours' writing, introduced by a short prayer, with a brief pause at five o'clock and concluded by a somewhat longer prayer at six.

Then comes the evening meal and compline, with suggestions for meditation at the canticle of Simeon. After this there is silence for all; examination of conscience and prayers, reflection on the matter for the following day and on sins committed, until nine o'clock. The day's subject matter for meditation will correspond to what we have suggested before: episodes from Christ's life and passion and the intention of the day. These subjects can be reflected on at various odd moments (during the day), but there is no suggestion that a definite hour or half hour was set aside for meditation.⁴ It is a heavy day!

1 Consuetudines, 20-21.

2 Ibid., 22-24.

3 Ibid., 24.

4 Ibid., 29-31.

[p. 402]

The Brother is always spiritually occupied and must seize every means to fix his thoughts upon the higher goal. It is interesting to note that the ten fingers are used to count the ten verses of the Magnificat, and thus to concentrate the attention on certain verses.¹ We saw something similar with Dirk of Herxen and it will occur again with Wessel Gansfort and John Mombaer. The ideal is a lofty one! No provision seems to be made for recreation, and there is no mention of teaching. The only form of work the Brother knows is the copying of books (scriptura). There is indeed some time for study but this is short. Pastoral work among the schoolboys was possible, however.² The Brothers took no part in the teaching. It can be shown that several of those who were rectors of the school were wrongly considered to have been fraters, including Peter of Zevenaar, Reinier Sarcerus and Thomas Dinslaken.³ The house belonging to the fraters (the domus pauperum in my opinion) used as a boarding school for the future clergy was transformed after the Reformation into a hostel for theology students of the later high school.

So ends this period of the history of the Zwolle branch of the Brotherhouses-Zwolle, Albergen, Hulsbergen, Doesburg, 's-Hertogenbosch and ten Orthen, Groningen and Harderwijk. In this period Hulsbergen managed to surmount the difficulties of the early days and sometimes offered hospitality to the brothers of Zwolle and Deventer. On one occasion they even came to the assistance of Amersfoort. Despite the proximity of a town with a school, the house retained its agrarian character, so that the Brothers no chance of furthering Humanism. Important events occur here, however, in the following period.

Even more rural was the house at Albergen. After the usual difficult years, the house surmounted the worst of its financial worries and acquired an independent position distinct from Zwolle on November 15th 1420.

It provided more than one rector for the Tertiaries outside Vollenhoven, and also received ecclesiastical independence from the parish priest. The Brothers maintained a courageous and principled stand during the interdict of 1525-1531, but showed a disposition to exchange the old institution for a monastery. On January 26th 1447,

1 Consuetudines, 28.

2 D. Buddingh, Bijdragen of geschiedkundig en letterkundig mengelwerk betreffende de geschiedenis van opvoeding en onderwijs in de Nederlanden 1843, I 133.

3 J. Schrasser, Harderwicum antiquum 1742, 47, 72.

[p. 403]

the second rector of Albergen received the Brothers' agreement and co-operation for his plan. The transition to the Canons Regular became a fact on May 4th 1447, when the house was admitted to the organization of the Windesheim chapter, while bishop Rudolf of Diepholt approved the transition in a decree dated June 24th 1447. At this time the house consisted of ten members. Only one of them left, but he later continued to favour the monastery of Albergen.¹

With the exception of the houses around Münster, the Deventer branch had a much harder struggle than that of Zwolle. We saw that at the beginning of the period, in 1421, the Brothers of Amersfoort were given a rector from Hulsbergen. They gained more living space on settling in St. Janscamp in 1444, but this perhaps increased the difficulties of caring for the schoolboys' spiritual welfare. The first fraters devoted much care to the Sisters and this tradition was probably continued. I have been unable to decide whether a domus pauperum scolarium was established here. The fraters certainly had nothing to do with the teaching in St. George's school. The rector of the house who was sent from Hulsbergen, and died in 1456, was renowned as a good speaker, notably in the collationes for the young people.² It is not certain whether many Brothers remained after a series of migrations from 1412 to 1433.

The second house founded from Deventer, i.e., Delft, underwent a similar difficult development during the first half of the 15th century. Here too the majority of the Brothers had transferred to a monastic order, and here too the Zwolle house had offered help in 1433. When, however, the last of the monastics left the house around 1435, and a few Zwolle fratres either supplemented what life there was or started entirely anew,³ there was room for fresh growth. On August 27th 1433 the Brothers received control of a few houses in the city.⁴

The house made a such good progress that in 1446 it ventured on a new foundation. It started a house in Gouda which soon, however, proved a real problem child.⁵ The people of Gouda had offered the

1 G.J.M. Kuiper, Huis en klooster St. Antonius te Albergen. Diss. Nijmegen 1959. 53, 55.

2 Joh. Lindeborn, Historia sive notitia episcopatus Daventriensis Köln 1670, 107, based on lost reports from Hulsbergen.

3 Schoengen 19.

4 Ibid 19

5 Kroniek van het fraterhuis te Gouda, Bijdr. en Meded. Hist. Gen. 20 (1898) 9-18 Nederlandse Historiebladen I (1938) 311. ∫. Taal, De Goudse kloosters in de Middeleeuwen, diss. Nijmegen 35-38; De archieven van de Goudse kloosters 's-Gravenhage, 1951, 18-33.

[p. 404]

Brothers a house and some sources of income, in return for nothing more than an extra sermon. Since this corresponded well with the fraters' activities, the rector of Delft, Henry Herp, accepted the offer against the advice of his confraters. In his idealism he had given no thought to his own poverty, and failed to realize that he did not possess the necessary means for a new foundation, either in money or personnel. At the request of the superior of the Zwolle congregation he himself accepted the direction of the Gouda house, and settled there with a number of fraters. His tender plant, however, refused to flourish. In 1450, the jubilee year, Herp, whose idealism had blinded him to reality, departed for Rome and there entered the Franciscan Order. Only one frater remained in Gouda, and he soon returned to Delft. Around 1454 a new rector found himself alone again and quitted the house. It was only then that Dirk of Herxen, father of all Devotionalists, rector of Zwolle, and president of the Zwolle colloquium, took a hand in the affair. He did this against his will and at the express request of his fellow directors. Zwolle accordingly sent a consignment of Brothers to this house, which in 1456 was officially recognized as a member of the Zwolle colloquium. Thus sustained and now assisted by the alms of the citizens of Gouda and by the setting up of a small school, it succeeded in surmounting the difficulties of the early years. The setting up of a small school is a new note in the history of the Brothers of the Common Life. Before going deeper into this however, we shall continue with the history of Delft after the decisive experience in Gouda.

Undeterred by this disappointment, the fraters of Delft began a new foundation in Utrecht in 1475. In this undertaking they were materially assisted by certain pious lay people of Utrecht. They gave their house behind St. Peter's to the Brothers of Delft, on condition that they should found a community there. In September 1475, shortly after the death of the last testator, the new inmates took possession of their inheritance, and by November 28th 1475 the new foundation was officially constituted as an independent Brotherhouse and placed under the supervision of the rectors of Zwolle, Deventer and Delft.¹ This last must have made considerable progress towards the end of the period, although the fraters appear never to have been exactly prosperous. A school also existed in Delft and was mentioned as early as 1322.² The school rights were then in the possession of the Count

1 A. Ekker, De Hieronymusschool te Utrecht, Utrecht 1863. Dodt van Flensburg, Archief I 19.

2 Buddingh, Bijdr. I 51; R.R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs 39.

[p. 405]

of Holland, but these rights, and with them the school, passed to the city as a gift, and were still enjoyed by the city in the 16th century.¹ The Brothers had no part at all in this educational institution and, since the city forcefully defended her sole rights to the big school, the fraters were unable to set up a private school on the side for teaching in Latin.² They could, however, found a hostel, and indeed opened a domus pauperum scholarium in the Schoolstraat. According to P. Opmerus, who must have been personally acquainted with the situation, twelve boys lived there who followed classes at the city school (schola publica). In the hostel they were subject to stern discipline, learnt music and church singing and sang in the chapel of the convent of St. Agatha.³ This discipline, church singing and the resemblance to other similar institutions, indicate that these twelve youths were destined for the clergy. Indeed, after the reformation, this hostel was transformed into a theological college in which future ministers could live free of charge.⁴ Although this was merely a small undertaking, similar to the small boarding schools attached to some of the chapter churches, the situation in Delft resembled that in Zwolle and Deventer. There is no mention of any further pastoral work among the schoolboys, which does not mean that it was not carried out.

As we said, the offshoot of Delft, the congregation or the Brotherhouse of Gouda, overcame the worst of its difficulties around 1460. For this they had to thank the alms offered by the citizens but also, as the chronicle tells us, a school, from which the fraters, according to the same chronicle, derived quite a considerable profit (satis lucrum bonum).⁵ This is the earliest known school in the history of the fraters, roughly 10 years before that of Culm (1472) which is in any case problematical. This report is already in direct conflict with the opinion of those who call the Brothers pioneers of free education. The necessity for making money from other work than the copying of books, which would soon arise due to the invention and use of the printing press, may not

1 H.J. Smit, De rekeningen der graven en gravinnen van het Henegouwse huis, Inl. W.H.G. Derde serie 69 (1939) 107. J. Soutenham, Mededelingen uit het archief van Delft, Delft 1862, 49. R.R. Post, Scholen en onderwijs 47.

2 R.R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs 68.

3 Printed by D. van Bleyswijck, Beschrijving der stad Delft, 1667, 519. The ‘constans fama’ of which Opmerus speaks at the end of the sixteenth century, contents that pope Adrian VI is supposed to have lived in this hostel. Dancwerc, aangeboden aan D.Th. Enklaar, Groningen 1959, 242.

4 D. van Bleyswijck, 323.

5 Henric van Arnhem's chronicle of the fraterhouse at Gouda, edited by A.H.L. Hensen in: Bijdragen en Mededeelingen van het Hist. Gen. 20 (1898) 45.

[p. 406]

yet have been felt in Gouda around 1460. This teaching thus was not intended to replace the traditional activities of the fraters, but to supplement them. The report also shows however, that we should not have too high an opinion of the school. Instruction was given in the guest-room, which also contained a bed.¹

It so happens that quite a good deal is known about the schools in Gouda in the 15th and 16th centuries. The institution of the fraters was very insignificant compared with the city school of the time.² In 1407 already, half a century before the Brothers obtained a firm footing in Gouda, the school there possessed a rector and three teachers, together with three hundred pupils.

The municipality was very vigilant in preserving the rights of this school. They would not tolerate the setting up of any additional school (for Latin and logic). This repeatedly formulated law suppressed the so-called private schools or prevented them from starting up at all. If the fraters' school was of any significance for this kind of teaching, it must have fallen victim to the afore-mentioned city laws and quickly disappeared. There is no further mention of it.³

Instruction in reading and writing was free in Gouda. These so-called writing schools were private institutions and several of them existed in the 16th century. Erasmus must have learned his reading and writing at one of them, and perhaps the very first principles of Latin.

Had the Brothers not ventured any further than this primary education, they would have gone scotfree, but this would scarcely have helped their reputation as bearers of culture.

The fraters' other activities on behalf of the schoolboys were also to be found in Gouda. In 1471 Armbout Gerijtzoon bought a house which he placed under the direction of the fraters as domus pauperum scolarium.⁴ It seems possible to me that the school in the fraters' house was nothing but such a domus pauperum in embryo. A few boys probably lived with the fraters and received a few lessons there in the evenings in the guest-room. In any case, the chronicle says that the schoolboys and commensales attended the school.⁵

1 Henric van Arnhem, 45.

2 In this period the school rights fell to the count of Holland. He usually gave them to some official, who either exercised them himself or leased them to the city. The parish school can thus be called the city school from an early date. R.R. Post, Scholen en Onderwijs, 47.

3 L.A. Kesper, Geschiedenis van het gymnasium te Gouda, I Gouda 72, 24, 25.

4 Kesper 113.

5 Kesper 112.

[p. 407]

The domus pauperum was exactly the same as those in Deventer, Zwolle and Doesburg. Before entering the candidate had to have reached the age of twelve or at least attained the fifth class in the city school. The house indeed was intended, for the benefit of poor pupils who will live there permanently in order to attend school. ‘And they will have to have heard the first treatise of Petrus Hispanus; they must be able to sing, or at least be willing to learn to sing, be at least twelve or thirteen years of age and be willing to wear the gown.’¹ The first treatise of this particular book of logic, summulae logicales, was dealt with in the fifth class. Living in the hostel and attending school are quite distinct. The first is a step towards the second, and the school in question is the city school. Another condition was that the poor pupil who was admitted into this house must have the firm desire and intention of entering the monastery, if he has enjoyed sufficient education in the opinion of the aforementioned Brothers.² As elsewhere, this house is destined for future monastics (and perhaps for aspirants to the priesthood). The fraters looked after the spiritual welfare of these boys and also of the pupils who visited this house. They were entitled to hear their confessions and grant them absolution and also to administer Holy Communion.³ Just as the boys in other towns usually went to the fraters' house on Sundays after vespers, those in Gouda were all to assemble in the school after vespers till they have heard the sermon. It is not stated whether the Brothers gave this sermon, but this is assumed.⁴

The second foundation from Delft, the house of St. Jerome in Utrecht, began on November 28th 1475. We do not know whether the house developed rapidly or not. It was only in the 16th century that their school, which they probably established in the domus pauperum, began to flourish to such an extent that it overshadowed the other schools of the five chapters and of the four parishes.

Although the foundations from Deventer (Amersfoort, Almelo, Hoorn, Delft) may not have had the same initial success as those of Zwolle, that in Delft finally continued fruitful.

1 Kesper 114, ‘tot behoeff der arme klerken(=schoolboys) di darin wonen sellen ter ewige dage om ter scoel te gaen ... ende sal moeten hebben gehoert primum tractatum Petri Hyspani ende connen of te willen leeren singen, ende wesend tenminste out twaalf of dertien jaren ende dragend sijn capoen aangetogen.’

2 Kesper 115, ‘sijn uiterste wil, sijn mening is ter cloester te gaan, als hij genoech geleert is na deze raet ende goedduncken der goede heren voersz.’

3 Kesper 113.

4 Kesper 88, ‘tot dat sij sermoen gehoert sullen hebben.’

[p. 408]

Two more foundations originated from the Deventer house: those of Louvain and Emmerich. The first mentioned in its turn bore fruit in the southern Netherlands. Apart from the brief existence of the foundation in Liège, the oldest Brotherhouse in the southern Netherlands was that of Louvain. We have already given some account of its foundation.¹ What prospects lay before the Brothers! The university in Louvain had only been in existence for nine years and was in full process of development. The medieval university, including that of Louvain, had the tendency, at least so far as the faculty of languages and philosophy was concerned, to split up into paedagogia: hostels or colleges. It would also have been possible for the Brothers to give tuition at university level in the paedagogia entrusted to them, providing they had qualified teachers, or to have commissioned certain scholars to teach for them. Either way they could have become part of the university. In the meantime they could have extended their pastoral work to include the university students. But it appears that they made no attempt to do either of these things. In any case, the Brotherhouse in Louvain had too brief an existence, from 1433 to 1447. However, to judge from the privileges they obtained, the fraters did begin their pastoral work among the students. As early as April 4th 1435, the deacon of Louvain gave the fraters permission to hear the confessions of all clerici in the city of Louvain.² These clerici comprised the pupils of the parish or city school as well as the university students. The house seems to have grown rapidly. On March 6th 1439 the fraters received permission to replace their chapel by a church with altars. At the same time they were allowed to hear the confession of the members of the house and bury them in their own ground. This privilege was confirmed by several ecclesiastical authorities and even by the Pope. It did not last long, however. The Brothers chose to become monastics and received their authorization to do so in 1447. They founded a monastery of Canons Regular, St. Maartensdal, and joined the congregation of Windesheim. Gilles Walrami, the first rector, became the first prior. Not all the Brothers deserted, however. At least two of them departed for Flemish cities, some succeeded in founding a house themselves in Cassel, although the Cassel venture failed and ended in the foundation of a Wilhelmite monastery. Something similar must have taken place years before in Antwerp, in 1444,

1 See p. 345 Archief Leuven Reg. 42, 39.

2 Archief Leuven Reg. 4239. Ibid.

[p. 409]

when the proposal to found a Brotherhouse led to the founding of a Cistercian monastery.¹

The Brother(s) who went to Ghent and to Geraardsbergen found there a building to which he (they) could be admitted. The founding of the Brotherhouse in Geraardsbergen must have taken place around 1437, but the circumstances are unknown; the foundation in the greatest Flemish city, Ghent, was in 1438. A contract dated April 28th 1439 has been preserved, in which H. Wernior, priest of the house of St. Jerome in Ghent, pledges himself to write a missal for the church of Roerbeke.² There also exists a privilege given by pope Eugenius IV, which allows them to have priests ordained under the title of member of the Brotherhouse (i.e., without any other benefice). The Brothers had no need to introduce teaching to Ghent in 1437. The abbots of St. Bavo and St. Peter had long possessed sole rights to teach in the schools belonging to their parishes. The school attached to St. Pharahilde was only able to survive with special support from the Count. It is not entirely clear how many schools there were or where they were situated, nor do we know what sort of teaching was given.³ The contract concerning the missal shows, however, that here too the priests formed an important element in the Brotherhouse and that, as elsewhere, the Brothers earned their living by copying books, usually the Bible. We also know, from a privilege received from pope Pius II (February 8th 1461)⁴ that they also carried out their priestly functions among the schoolboys. By this privilege they received, besides complete parochial rights, permission to hear the schoolboys' confessions and to distribute Holy Communion to them. The papal document also mentions that the ‘instructio scholarium’ formed part of the fraters' activities.⁵ If these words reflect the actual state of affairs, they may refer to their teaching task in the hostel, although they might indicate a wider field of educational activities. Papal documents like these, as we know, do not afford much proof in such matters. However, that a hostel did in fact exist in the 16th century is clear from the chartes et documents analysed by V. Vander Haeghen.⁶

1 A. Cassiman, De moderne devotie of Geert Groote in oost Vlaanderen O.G.E. XXVI (1952) 162-165.

2 Fr. de Potter, Gent IV s.a. 526.

3 V. Fris, Bibliographie de l'Histoire de Gent, Gent 1407, 201.

4 A. Miraeus, Reg. en Const. clericorum, Antwerpen 1638, cap. X 13.

5 Ibid., cap X 13.

6 V. Vander Haeghen. Inventaire des archives de la ville de Gand. Etablissements religieux 1887, 87-96. A. Cassiman, ibidem, 168.

[p. 410]

These documents are partly original and partly transcribed in Den bouck van onser fondatie der XIII scolieren in den huijse van St. Jeronimus te Ghendt. Although these pieces date from the 16th century, they may be referred to here since the hostel of which they prove the existence is probably very much older.

In 1521 (July 25th) Lievin van Pottelsburghe, knight, Lord of Vanderhaut, adviser to Charles V and receiver of the Count of Flanders, together with his wife Lievine van Steeland, founded a bursary for ten persons. This document was, however, withdrawn on May 20th 1529, to be replaced one more explicit.¹ At this time there was room in the hostel for fifty poor schoolboys. Paying students were also accepted. These were divided into divites and mediocres as we already saw in Zwolle, but here they ate in the same room, although at different tables. The lowest age limit for the bursarii was 12 to 14 years and their studies lasted for four years. At this period there seems to have been a school within the house, consisting of different classes. The rector of the school there (‘recteur der scolen aldaar’) decided into which class the boys were to go. Having completed their four years of study, the boys were ready to proceed if they wished to go to the university. A list of boys who studied at the school between 1521 and 1529 has been preserved, but none of them seems to have won later fame as a scholar. It is possible that the hostel boys attended one of the city schools and that the rector of this school had to give them a place in some class, but as the document stands, the contrary must be understood. It is not clear when this teaching was introduced nor by whom it was given. The curriculum must have been similar to that of the other schools, for it was a preparation for university studies. This school may have existed when Josse Badius was a scholar in Ghent.² Although we are straying a little outside our period here,

1 Inventaire des Archives de la ville de Gand, Gand 1896, p. 222-272.

2 Ed. by H. Sommalius, Thomae Malleoli a Kempis Opera omnia, Col. Agrippa 1660. Since he merely states that in his youth many persons e domo Gandavensi entered the orders of the Franciscans, Dominicans and Carmelites, he is only speaking of the hostels and not of the school. In an edition of Alexander de Villa Dei, Doctrinale Pars I Antwerpen, Herm, Ecbert van Homberch 1 maart 1503, see Nijhoff-Kronenberg nr. 2278, there is a dedication from Judocus Badius Ascensius to the fathers Eligius Ghiès and Andreas Terreburgo... scholasticorum domus fratrum divi Hieronymi Gandavi rectoribu et preceptoribus optimis and to the other pillars of this house.-1500. We find two persons as leaders of a Brothers' school in the hostels, for example in 's-Hertogenbosch in Erasmus' time. It seems very likely that what is called a school here in Ghent is nothing more than the hostel.

[p. 411]

and the end of the house and hostel is given later, we know from these same data that there were 11 priests, 4 clerics and 8 lay brothers in Ghent in 1529. This is quite a sizeable community, roughly the same as that of Doesburg.¹

The priestly element is by far the greatest, and here too the clerici will later have been ordained. There was no Master of Arts among the fraters, however, while the ‘pater’ of this house was often rector of the ‘school’ too. The house of Ghent was one of the institutions which requested permission for their chapel to be elevated to a collegial church, a request granted by the papal legate Onofrio on January 10th 1469.²

Geraardsbergen also acquired a Brotherhouse before the middle of the century. The first document which has come down to us dates from April 16th 1452. In this bishop John of Doornik declares that the Bull of Eugenius IV, 1444, which permitted a collegial church, also applied to the Brotherhouse of Geraardsbergen.³ Here the patron was St. Gregory. In 1486 (May 16th) the Brothers of the Gregory house sold a house.⁴ We know that they had at least a hostel in the 16th century from a report that the school children of the ‘fraternye’ gave a Latin play on July 8th 1547,⁵ but we know nothing of the circumstances under which the house was founded.

The Brussels house seems to have come into existence quite independently of the northern Netherlands. The surviving documents at least show no particular contact at all with any of the other institutions, or with the colloquium of Zwolle.⁶ The Brotherhouse in Brussels owes its existence to a testamentary disposition by Philippe Vanden Rietveld and his wife Catharine Sloofs, dated May 15th 1422.⁷ The lawyer who drew up this will, however, must have had recourse to documents from other Brotherhouses. This is clear from the description of the nature and aims of the institution, and the obedience of the fraters to the church authorities.⁸ None the less, the Brussels

1 Van der Haeghen X p. 91.

2 A. Miraeus, Opera diplomatica IV 442. A. Miraeus, Regulae et constitutiones clericorum, Antwerpen 1638, cap. XIII, p. 16.

3 Staatsarchief, charter no. 21.

4 Ibid., 301.

5 Staatsarchief Ronse, Stadsrekeningen van Geraardsbergen 1547-48, fol. 61^v. Communication of Dr. Lansing O. Carm.

6 Plac. Fern. Lefèvre O. Praem. Documents relatifs aux Frères de la vie commune établi à Bruxelles aux XV^e et XVI^e siècles. Bulletin de la commission d'Histoire, Bruxelles 103 (1938) 41-114.

7 Ibid., 153.

8 Ibid., 54.

[p. 412]

foundation would be less independent than the houses in the northern Netherlands, insofar as it came under the supervision of four provisors who lived outside the fraternity. The rector would have to answer to these people for this handling of financial affairs. For the new foundation the testators destined their own house, situated in La Putterie (Putenhof or Putenof, near Bloemarts Borre),¹ naturally after the death of the surviving partner. At the same time they made a vicarage in honour of the Annunciation in the chapel of St. Catherine, near the Flemish port.² Since at least one of the testators died in 1449 the will can only have come into force around the middle of the century. This was thus after the transfer of the house in Louvain to the Canons Regular, and the setting up of the house in Ghent, so that the first fraters could be drawn from the surrounding districts. The earliest preserved deed dates from December 24th 1460, and is an agreement between the Brotherhouse and the chapter of St. Goedele. It was only drawn up, however, after some disagreement had arisen and a solution to this was discussed.³

By this time the house had already made some development and the company consisted of at least three priests and three clerics. It had already had occasion to refer to papal privileges to counter the demands of the chapter. On the basis of this, the foundation of the house could be dated around 1455. The significant clauses in this agreement are these: the congregation might have only twenty members, who must lead a communal life as in the first days of the church, renouncing all personal possessions. The rules were relaxed with regard to the houses of Deventer and Zwolle, to the extent that anyone who left the house of his own free will after his official reception was to receive back anything he had brought with him on his entry, while renouncing all claim to the fruits of his capital or labours and to the property of the house.⁴ The congregation might introduce no innovations in the foundation without the permission of the chapter and the four provisors. They might not, for example, change the house into a monastery of Canons Regular.⁵

The Brothers had free choice of rector, but the person elected required the approval of the chapter.⁶ Both rector and Brothers were virtually under the supervision of the chapter.⁷ The rectors had to

1 A. Henne Wauters, Histoire de ville de Bruxelles III 1845, 134.

2 Lefèvre, 1.c. 57.

3 Ibid., 60.

4 Ibid., 62.

5 Ibid., 63.

6 Ibid., 63-64.

7 Ibid., 64.

[p. 413]

take the same oath as the chapter chaplains.¹ They had to ask to be allowed to participate in the choir prayers and for this they had to wear the prescribed dress. They also had to attend Mass and the office on at least four feast days, and take part in certain processions. There were clauses, too, regulating the ceremonies in their own chapel and the distribution of the offerings, the appointment and installation of the rector of the Brothers as vicar of two vicarageships (St. Agatha in St. Goedele and the Annunciation in St. Catherine's), the administering of the Holy Sacrament to the members and inmates of the house, and other matters.

Several of these decrees concern the relationship of the fraters to the parish priest and the parish church. They also occur elsewhere and do not apply solely to the Brothers, although they frequently provide evidence of their priestly character and their desire for an active life, for pastoral work. What is more important is that they sought in the schoolboys particularly the objects of their priestly work. The agreement with the chapter, in which they had to renounce much of their independence, recognizes the sermon given in the Brotherhouse after vespers by one of the Brothers for the clerici and the students, and especially for the boni infantes, accompanied by their teacher. It also mentions the collation, being not a sermon or solemn discourse, but only a simple exhortation or brotherly admonition. This was to be held behind closed doors, with lay people excluded.² This last is a regulation added by the chapter to the usual formula, in fear that the fraters should attract adults. A limit was also set to the praying or singing of the breviary by the Brothers in their own chapel, with the exception of Palm Sunday and the Feast of the Annunciation.³ So much for pastoral work among the schoolboys of Brussels in general. Had the fraters also a domus pauperum, a hostel for those whom they hoped would become more closely associated with them? There is no mention of such a hostel in the long contract under discussion, but it appears shortly afterwards in the surviving deeds, those of March 7th 1465 and April 2nd 1466.⁴ It seems from the first that the fraters did not confine themselves to going over the school subjects with the boys in the evening. They also gave formal lessons, so that their

1 Lefèvre, 65, 70-71.

2 Ibid., 72.

3 Ibid., 73.

4 The first mentioned by Lefèvre 48, no. 13 and the second published by him 77 and 82.

[p. 414]

hostel became a school in the strict sense, following the programme of the city school of the time: Latin, music and logic. This is an attempt such as we meet elsewhere, which was successful in a few places, but in most cases was hampered by the law. Here too, being directly contrary to the civic ordinances and the privileges of the chapter, it was also speedily suppressed. From henceforth the hostel boys had to attend the ‘big school.’ The same order is clearly expressed in the charter of April 2nd 1460.

The chapter itself maintained a boarding school for twelve boys boni infantes, bons enfants, in which a paedagogus, a teacher, taught singing, along with the ordinary school subjects. These boys often had to sing during the hours, or during Holy Mass, and were assisted in this by the other students, sons of the city burgers. In order to lighten their task somewhat, and take them as little as possible from their school work, the chapter wished to appoint a further six poor choristers. These were to be selected from boys who could already sing a little Latin and who had attended the great school of Brussels (majores scholas Bruxellenses) for at least a year. In order to qualify, the boys had to be at least ten years old and might not remain longer than their eighteenth year.¹

These six were to be distinguished from the above mentioned boni infantes and from the ordinary schoolboys by a tonsure and gown. Once a year they had to beg among the citizens with the other poor scholars. The rector and the sub-rector of the big school (majoris scolae opidi Bruxellensis) had to give them free lessons. I have not been able to decide whether these six poor choristers lived in the Brothers' hostel or in the house of the boni infantes, but they were placed under the guidance of the rector of the Brotherhouse and of the receptor, the head of the boni infantes. A peculiar feature is that the chapter declares that various wills of people mentioned by name, destined either for the boni infantes or for the pauperes scholares, the poor schoolboys who attended the big school of Brussels, should henceforth be applied also for the benefit of these six new chorales pauperes. This group was to to increased to twelve as soon as finances permitted, and they would be given their own house.² It is clear that living and teaching are separate. This is notably so in the case of the pauperes who, to judge from the person to whom they were confided, lived with the fraters in their domus pauperum. This was also the only logical consequence of

1 Lefèvre, 77.

2 Ibid., 80-82.

[p. 415]

the suppression of the school in the fraters' house, one year earlier.

Here too, we must remember the privilege of pope Eugenius IV, applied to the house of Brussels at the rector's request by the papal legate Onofrio on January 10th, 1469.¹ In other documents there is no mention of any change brought about by this.²

Around 1480 the fraters left their first house and settled in the lower town (in the neighbourhood of Saint Gery). They had acquired a house here, probably through inheritance, from the same family Van den Rietveld. This move resulted in a new agreement with the chapter, which somewhat modified the Brothers' obligations towards the chapter but in fact did nothing to make them more independent. They also retained their two vicarships. Six priests and three fraters are mentioned in the beginning of the document.³ Here too thus there was a preponderance of priests, with a tendency for the number of priests in the house to increase.

The Brothers' connection with the school was altered in 1491. In that year the ‘scholaster’ transferred the great school of Brussels to them for a period of nine years.⁴ But this brings us into another period.

For the rest the activities of the Brothers in Brussels were the same as elsewhere; they copied and bound books. They continued to do this even after the art of printing became widespread, but they concentrated especially on valuable books, or very large choir books. Lefèvre gives various examples.⁵ A more specific achievement of the fraters in Brussels is that they set up the earliest printing works in the city, but it only survived about ten years.⁶

The founding of the house at Emmerich in the second half of the fifteenth century is a remarkable proof of the continuing vitality of the house of Deventer. This latest offshoot was cherished by the Deventer Brothers in its early years and assisted both materially and by good counsel during its growth towards independence. The town of Emmerich, which now belongs to West Germany, formed part politically of the Dukedom of Cleves in the fifteenth century and later, although it stood under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the diocese of Utrecht. For this reason the Brotherhouse continued to visit the

1 A. Miraeus, Opera diplomatica IV, 442.

2 cf. p. 451

3 Lefèvre 81.

4 Ibid., 96.

5 Ibid., p. 112-114.

6 Ibid., 46. See hereafter p. 551

[p. 416]

colloquium of Zwolle and not that of Münster, as did the neighbouring, somewhat more easterly, Brotherhouse at Wesel. This latter foundation was much older, and situated south of the Rhine.

The house at Emmerich owed its existence to a more or less chance circumstance, namely the complete conversion of the well-to-do couple Dirk of Wiel and Belia of Dorsten. The husband was a ducal functionary from Emmerich, related to Egbert ter Beeck from Wijhe, rector of the Brotherhouse at Deventer (1450-83) who as a pupil of the school in that city had lodged with his relatives, the Dorstens. According to the chronicle of the Emmerich Brotherhouse, the couple had lived for several years in a rather worldly manner, but suffered a change of heart around 1466. They settled first in Deventer and renewed or prolonged their friendship with rector Egbert ter Beeck and the Brothers.

In 1468 this conversion and this friendship led to the founding of a new Brotherhouse in Emmerich. Dirk van Wiel, himself inclined towards the monastic life after the death of his wife, gave his own house in Emmerich for this purpose. The first inmates were three Brothers from Deventer, under the direction of the first rector, Peter of Maastricht. None the less, despite having acquired a roomy, though empty, house, despite repeated support from Deventer and the sending of young fraters or novices from the city on the IJssel, this house was slow in development. Rapid growth was hindered by lack of sufficient income, repeated infectious illnesses and deaths among the young fraters.

These difficult years, the upholding of the original ideals and the Brothers' courage, are described in a house chronicle similar to those of Zwolle, Deventer, Doesburg and Gouda. It is a series of brief biographies of recently deceased Brothers, compiled towards the end of this period (in 1490). The author was probably the third rector, but it was not continued later.¹ The description of the difficulties, actions, attitudes and aspirations of the first fraters show the same aims and ideals as elsewhere, illustrated here by a few facts. These aims and aspirations are revealed even more clearly in the consuetudines or statutes of this house, renewed shortly before 1513. This was really done with the intention of stressing the original ideals once again, so that they may also serve to characterize the situation as it existed at this period. This document places the same stress on the significance of manual

1 To be edited by W. Jappe Alberts.

[p. 417]

work for the brothers, which still consisted of seven hours copying a day;¹ (six for the priests). We also find in it the emphasis on the spiritual preparation for the outward prayers and hymns of the breviary, the intensely devout participation in the Holy Mass, the hour set aside for the study of the Holy Scriptures and other pious works which nourish the spirit, and finally the frequent meditation on the passion of Christ and on the four last things, together with the aspirations and examination of conscience. All of these are meant to keep the intention constantly pure and as active as possible. It is also noteworthy that the spiritual care of the Brothers for the schoolboys emerges clearly in these statutes, when for example it is said that the scholars must be sent away before the evening ceremonies begin.² It is also evident from the discussions on the pupils' (clerici) interests on Sunday evenings,³ and from the discourses (not in the manner of a sermon) held for the young people especially on Sundays and feast days after vespers in the church. Before the vespers individual persons could be given spiritual counsel.⁴ Many of the decrees resemble those drawn up for monasteries and are not particularly distinctive for the Brothers.

The biographies do not forget to mention either that this Brother or that was a good writer or preacher,⁵ which proves that, despite their inner devotion, the Brothers esteemed the active spiritual life and considered in it accordance with the aims of the Brotherhood. The basis of their devout life continues to be the virtues of humility (also in dress), obedience and poverty, while as means to their goal they employ frequent meditation, ejaculatory prayers, the renewal of the good intention, and the examination of conscience. It is noteworthy that, when recommending poverty, it is said that every religio, monastic order, is based on poverty.⁶ This was indeed in keeping with their statutes in which, copying those of Zwolle, they had established that roughly 100 écus would be sufficient to maintain 15 to 16 people. They thought they would be able to earn this by their writing⁷ and anything over and above would be given to the poor.

Did these fraters occupy themselves with teaching and school during the first 25 years of their existence? Although the Constitution established the number of fraters at 15 or 16, the house contained only

1 Chronicle, 10.

2 Ibid., 10.

3 Ibid., 12.

4 Ibid., 13.

5 Ibid., 7, 28, 32, 49.

6 Ibid., 13, 20.

7 Ibid., 10.

[p. 418]

7 members in 1472, four fraters from Deventer and three novices. One of these died the same year.¹ This number was subsequently increased, despite the fact that several members of the community died at an early age. They will not have been able to develop any significant activity in the domain of education, for besides the seven-hour working day and the many prayers, they also, as we saw, undertook the spiritual care of these boys. One must also remember that, according to a contract dated April 26th 1445, the chapter held the exclusive right to keep a school and to give instruction in Latin.²

We are told, for several of the fraters, what studies they had completed before entering the Brotherhouse. Most of them had completed the classes of the schools of Deventer or Zwolle or some other city (although we are not informed whether this included the two top classes). Peter of Maastricht, for example, the first rector or Pater of Emmerich († 1472) attended the school of Deventer,³ John of Medemblik, the second rector, went to school in Zwolle and later in Deventer.⁴ The latter had even aspired to Paris, before he decided to enter the Fraternity. Although he later considered this plan as a deceit and inspiration of the devil, his heart was at first so firmly set upon it that the arguments used by the fraters to dissuade him seemed foolish and superfluous. But, as he recounted later, the Lord prevented his going in a miraculous manner, and this is confirmed by a story.⁵ This passage, which occurs in a chronicle compiled around 1500, is one of the strongest rejections of university studies by the fraters. The city school, with its Latin and logic, was enough for them! Philosophy was unnecessary, not to mention theology, law or medicine. Their Brothers came from the city schools. John Plech of Münster-Eifel († 1481), after having been a chorister in Münster-Eifel, attended the school of Deventer;⁶ John of Vlissingen († 1484) also came from the school of Deventer;⁷ Albert Borken († 1499) was from ‘our school of Emmerich;’⁸ Stephen ter Beeck († 1494) was from the Deventer school and entered the Brotherhouse in Deventer;⁹ Henry Rijck of Euskerken († 1494) attended the Deventer school;¹⁰ Engelbert of Rees († 1494) studied three years in Deventer;¹¹ Sibert of Gulik (cleri-

1 Statutes 3-4.

2 Müller, Schulordnungen I 53.

3 Chronicle 8.

4 Ibid., 11.

5 Ibid., 12.

6 Ibid., 19.

7 Ibid., 28.

8 Ibid., 35.

9 Ibid., 39.

10 Ibid., 43.

11 Ibid., 48.

[p. 419]

cus, († 1495) studied in Deventer.¹ Albert Borken was one of the first three to come from the school of Emmerich.²

It is no wonder that the Brothers came to the conclusion that, in order to recruit novices, it was important either to have a school themselves or to co-operate in developing the school in Emmerich.³ The school is mentioned quite frequently in the chronicle, yet still it is not clear what the author means. We must here examine all the data available and compare it with what we know from elsewhere. One thing is certain. In Emmerich, as in all similar towns, at least one Latin school existed before the coming of the fraters.

Here it was the school of the main church, at the same time chapter church, a parish-school or chapter-school or a city-school according to whether the parish, the chapter or the city controlled the administration. The school curriculum was the same in all such schools: Latin, logic and a little music. This school existed and flourished in Emmerich when the fraters settled there in 1468 and weathered their first years, rendered difficult by a lack of money and vocations. It is not likely that they founded a new school alongside the existing one, if indeed the municipality would have tolerated such a rival school. But here and there, towards the end of this period, around 1480, the Brothers underwent a change of ideas. Driven by economic necessity, they looked about them for new sources of income.

Before turning to what the chronicle has to say on this question, may I recall the passage quoted which mentions their disapproval of the idea of university study in Paris? It would at least seem to follow from this that the Brothers had no idea of training competently educated teachers. John Plech exhorted the inmates of the new Brotherhouse to ensure ‘that the pupils of the school visit us and that the school of Emmerich flourishes, so that according to the aim of our foundation, we may persevere in our vocation as children with children.’⁴

Here the writer is concerned only with the school of Emmerich and with attracting the pupils of that school to the Brotherhouse for their spiritual welfare.

1 Chronicle, 55.

2 Ibid., 35.

3 Ibid., 20.

4 Ibid., 20. Cepit itaque post hec multis modis animos patrum et fratrum tam ex domo Daventriensi quam ex domo nostra sollicitare, ut concursum nobis clericorum et scole Embricensis promocionem procuraremus, ut sic in vocatione nostra secundum institucionem venerabilium patrum predecessorum nostrorum parvuli cum parvulis persistere possemus.

[p. 420]

Albert Borken, who died in 1499 but whose date of entry is unknown, was admitted to the Brotherhouse with two others as firstlings of ‘our school of Emmerich’ and as ‘first fruits of our new house.’ He was two years ‘under our care while he attended the school of Emmerich.’¹ Although the word noster here is not very clear, the reference is undoubtedly to the city school of Emmerich. There is a distinction between living, or at least being sub custodia nostra, and going to school. This living took place in the new house, since these novices are considered as its first fruits. A statement by Henry Rijck of Euskerken makes it clear which this new house was. Henry came into contact with the Brothers of Emmerich under the second rector John of Medemblik (1472-1478). He was the first procurator of the new house which lodged the pupils or schoolboys.² This is thus the hostel which admitted pupils from the big school, as we found everywhere else. The fact that this house received its own procurator, and a layman at that, even though he was subsequently ordained, proves that it was a building distinct from the Brotherhouse. It later appears that this house was built under rector Theodoric who succeeded John of Medemblik in 1482.

The chronicler, probably Theodoric himself, had the new house dedicated at the beginning of 1482, with the permission of the Brothers. This ceremony elevated it to the place ‘in which, according to the custom of our worthy fathers in Deventer and Zwolle, we might receive and train those boys who came to us with the intention of attending the school. They remained there under our supervision and there received instruction in knowledge (scientia) and in good morals and in the fear of God.’ The reference to the fathers of Deventer and Zwolle speaks volumes! The school referred to here is the city school of Emmerich. The word scientia offers no difficulty; it occurs elsewhere in a similar context, i.e. in the report on Culm, and refers to the hearing of the day's lessons by one of the fraters.

More details of this new house are given. It was built on the grounds of the convent of St. Agnes, near the Brotherhouse.³ Henry, the first procurator of this house, was ordained priest and entered upon his task between Easter and Whitsun of 1482. His work was crowned with success: very many pupils (clerici et iuvenes) came from neigh-

1 Chronicle 35. Primicias schole nostre Embriensis. Visitans scholas Embricas.

2 Ibid., 43. Hic ... primus procurator fuit nove domus nostre quam scilicet clerici sive scholastici inhabitant.

3 Ibid., 44.

[p. 421]

bouring towns and villages. For these he was at once pater, procurator, instructor et in omnibus provisor.¹ From this alone it may be deduced that the teaching here was quite incidental. The large number of pupils also led him to extend an old building next door, in order to lodge more boys.² With their help he built a wall around the whole.

Meanwhile, the plans for expansion flourished. A start was made on an even bigger house, but on July 11th, 1494, the dreaded plague put an end to the work of the enterprising Henry Rijck of Euskerken.³ It was at his urging that the Brothers thought of setting up in Emmerich a school in the strict sense of the word: pro habendo exercitio cum pueris et clericis sicut apud venerabiles patres nostros Daventrie et Zwolle fieri videtur: in order to have training (practice) with the boys and pupils as seems to be done by the reverent fathers of Deventer and Zwolle.⁴

The chronicler expresses himself rather vaguely. The fathers in Deventer and Zwolle associated with and trained the boys, but they had no proper school. We must none the less assume that such were the plans of Henry Rijck of Euskerken, in the first place because he built a much larger building than was customary. He also discussed his plans with Arnold of Hildeshem, rector of the school of Emmerich, and these plans were welcomed by the city magistrate and the people.⁵

The chronicler does not say whether they had suitable teachers. However, Henry's death and the flight of many of the boys before the plague, opened the eyes of the responsible authorities. The plans were shelved and the Brothers were thus cut off from the beginnings of a renewed education in the Humanistic spirit of which the appointment of Alexander Hegius to the school of Emmerich (1474-1483) may be considered a sign.⁶

The foundation in Nijmegen also belongs to the third generation of Brotherhouses. It was an offshoot of the house in 's-Hertogenbosch, and likewise dedicated to St. Gregory,⁷ at the beginning of 1470. The

1 Chronicle 44.

2 Ibid., 45.

3 Ibid., 47.

4 Ibid., 48.

5 Ibid., 48.

6 From the undated leges domus fratrensium Embricae, edited by Joh. Petry, in: Städtisches Progrymnasium zu Steele. Jahresbericht über das Schuljahr 1898-99. Steele 1899, p. 5 sq., it is clear that boys lived with the fraters but went to the city school: when the school bell rings the boys hurry to the school. p. 6: domus reversi per medum horulae lectiones auditas repetent.

7 Lindeborn 131; also F. Gorissen, Atlas van Nijmegen, Arnhem 1956, 119.

[p. 422]

Brothers subsequently transferred to a house in the Boddelstraat which had been given to them in 1475. The donor was a canon of the church of St. Stephen in Nijmegen, Reinier of Os, who had acquired the house in 1475 from Reinald of Ooi who had gone over to the enemy during the siege of Nijmegen by Charles the Bold in 1473. This desertion so incensed the citizens of Nijmegen that they broke the windows of his house. The canon bought, probably for next to nothing, this windowless house, which had not been restored in 1475, and gave it to the fraters who had recently arrived in Nijmegen. The first rector was Master Peter of Os, most probably not entirely without the connivance of the family of the founder Reinier. It must have been difficult to make a start in such a dilapidated house, but judging from later events, the fraters simply followed what they had learned in 's-Hertogenbosch. As in this city, there was in Nijmegen a large city or chapter school which had developed long before the coming of the fraters. Since this Nijmegen Brotherhouse took quite some time to surmount its original difficulties, its history, apart from the foundation, falls in the following period.¹

With the exception of Emmerich, which belonged to the Utrecht diocese and was a late product of Deventer, the German houses either directly or indirectly owed their existence for the greater part to the first Brotherhouse in Germany, that of Münster. The inception of the houses of Cologne and of Osterberg and Osnabrück has been described in a preceding chapter. Both these latter disappeared as Brotherhouses around 1430, although in all probability the Brothers of Osnabrück simply transferred to Herford.² This transfer must have taken place under the direction of Konrad Westerwolt, who acquired a house in Herford in 1428. He took up residence here with three other priests, thus modestly initiating the Herford Brotherhouse.³ Westerwolt obtained the approval of the pope and of Henry von Ahaus from Münster and was in 1431 appointed rector of the congregation of Herford. This appointment was made at the meeting between four German houses which constituted the beginning of the colloquium of Münster. We shall discuss this meeting later. Both the consuetudines and the statutes of the Herford Brotherhouse have been preserved,⁴ although unfortunately they are not dated. It seems, however, that

1 See hereafter p. 608

2 E. Barnikol, p. 63.

3 Ibid., 61-62-63, 66, 67.

4 Publ. in: Theologische Monatschrift II (1854) 543-582.

[p. 423]

they were drawn up and formulated later than those of Zwolle, and agree with them on essentials. We find here expressed the same principles upon which the Zwolle Brethren's life was based: the combatting of faults and the sicknesses of the soul by the restraining of lust and the suppression of pride,¹ by the practice of mutual love, obedience and chastity. One finds the same regulations concerning punishments, silence and speech and the collation. These include early rising, many external prayers such as the entire office supplemented by the seven penitential psalms and the little office of Our Lady. There was in addition, low Mass and High Mass. Even the regulations concerning the communal and private praying of the Matins on Sundays and feastdays and on weekdays-different for the priests and the clerics-coincide with those of Zwolle.² It is interesting to note in this connection that various means are recommended to arouse and maintain inner devotion during these oral prayers; numerous reflections on rising, while preparing for the hours and at Holy Mass, before eating and working and going to bed. After Compline the Brother was free to do as he liked for a short time, but was warned to avoid idle chatter. The day ended with an examination of conscience and a thought for the first reflection of the next day.

The statutes mention the special tasks of the rector, procurator, librarian and others, but are silent on the subject of a school or hostel director. And yet the Brothers in Herford, like their colleagues in most of the other houses, will have extended their care to the schoolboys, although without having a school in the strict sense. But there is no mention of any of this.

During this second period the Brotherhouse in Münster experienced a time of great prosperity and growth. This is evident from several facts. In the first place they founded new houses; those of Cologne and Wesel in the first period and now those in Herford, Hildesheim, Rostock, Marburg, and Merseburg. They also collaborated in setting up the Rhineland canons-houses-with communal life and possessions. There was in addition the founding of Sisterhouses in which Brothers from the Münster house acted as chaplain. The number of members must have been considerable and not particularly easy to recruit. It is no wonder that in 1441 the rector proposed to the colloquium that a second house should be built in Münster for the clerici. When they had obtained permission for this venture in 1442 they

1 Consuetudines, 547.

2 Ibid., 565.

[p. 424]

proceeded to found the house¹ and the rector earnestly impressed upon the Brothers that they should strive to attract new clerici.² From what we know of the houses of Deventer and Zwolle, it seems that these clerici must be the young fraters who were being trained for the priesthood and who would be ordained in a few years. These were thus novices, and not to be confused with the inmates of the hostel who would have been pupils from the city school. Münster had a house for these boys too. It had to be restored in 1469 and incomes and beds acquired.³ Unfortunately we possess very few details of the internal history of the Münster Brotherhouse. As a result of the haphazard preservation of documents, our information in this period is virtually confined to the activities of the rectors of the house as presidents of the Münster colloquium, which is discussed in a different connection.⁴ We are not informed of any teaching task. The Brothers had not yet any connection with the school of Münster which gained a considerable reputation during the first period of Humanism.

The history of the Brotherhouse at Cologne⁵ by Henry von Ahaus, after the foundation comprises, so far as we know, the close association with the houses of Münster, Herford (later Wesel), while the collaboration in the founding of the houses of Marienthal, Butzbach, Königstein and Wolf is further discussed.⁶ In 1423 there were four priests and three clerici and in 1428 five priests and three clerici.⁷ The numbers probably increased later, but one would not deduce from the Gedächtnissbuch that there were very many. Löffler describes the fraters' activities as the copying and binding of books and this continued to be so until the 16th century. There is no sign at all of the existence of a domus pauperum or of contact with students from the Cologne school or university. The Brothers are evidently simple priests who now and then arouse the opposition of small-minded city councillors or guild leaders but who nevertheless enjoyed the esteem of many persons: benefactors who frequently bequeathed to them foundation for Masses, vigils or other ceremonies. These benefactors

1 Doebner, 260.

2 Ibid., 260.

3 Ibid., 264.

4 See p. 454

5 Kl. Löffler, Das Fraterhaus Weidenbach in Köln, Annalen des Historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein, 102 (1918) 98-128. Kl. Löffler, Das Gedächtnisbuch des Kölner Fraterhauses Weidenbach. Annalen des historischen Vereins für den Niederrhein, 103 (1919) 1-47. R. Haass, Devotio Moderna in der Stadt Köln im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert, Veröffentlichungen des Kölnischen Geschichtvereins, 1960, 133-154.

6 Kl. Löffler, Das Fraterhaus, 106.

7 Kl. Löffler, Das Fraterhaus, 106.

[p. 425]

included, besides various lay people, members of the clergy and also canons of the Cologne chapter churches, but no one calling himself a professor of the university of Cologne. Such a contact was evidently not in the Brothers' line. They did not study at the university, for none of the Brothers bears an academic title, and none of them is called docent, schoolrector, or schoolmaster. They are, however, mentioned as rector of the house, procurator, scriptuarius, tailor or confessor of convents. In so far the details of this obituary correspond with what we know of the Dutch houses.

The foundation of the Brotherhouse at Wesel is well known. It shows the same pattern as that of the other houses, i.e., the acquiring of a suitable house, usually as a gift, its extension by buying new property, the co-operation of the municipality or a higher authority, monetary acquisitions from one or other of the Brothers, the cooperation of the rector of the main house and his willingness to supply a number of Brothers. The Devotio Moderna was already familiar in Wesel from the Netherlands, since one of the four Beguinages, the Mariengarten, had become a Sisterhouse of the Common Life in 1429, being given a rector or confessor from Münster, Henry von Ahaus' right hand man, the procurator Herman of Wernen. The latter sought an opportunity to establish a Brotherhouse in Wesel as well. This became possible when one of the Münster Brothers inherited a house in Wesel on November 2nd 1435 and Henry von Ahaus acquired a property next to it, buying some of it and being given the rest. The plan of founding a Brotherhouse here and settling Brothers from Münster was already provisionally approved by the Münster colloquium in 1435. The approval of the municipality was obtained in 1436 and the foundation was completed before October 1436. Herman of Wernen was the first rector.¹ A link was established with Münster and Cologne and since this link persisted we possess some information concerning the rectors and Brothers of Wesel, preserved in the obituary of Münster and Cologne. There is no evidence of any contact with the school or schoolboys, such as might be assumed, nor is it said of any of these Brothers that they were schoolmasters. The rector and Brothers of Wesel are still being mentioned in the second half of the 18th century. It is perhaps characteristic of the later relationship that Brother Peter Uphoff is called sacerdos et senior Wesaliensis et pastor im

1 Löffler, 65-72; App. VI, 196-197.

[p. 426]

Spellen zelosissimus. He died in 1684.¹ The fraters had become parish priests.

The beginning of the Brotherhouse in Rostock took place in 1469.² In that year (on September 28th) two Rostock priests founded two prebends for the Brotherhouse. In 1469 the Brothers settled in a rented house (viridis horti). They were only able to start new buildings in 1502 when their financial position considerably improved.

Little is known of the Brothers' attitude to school and teaching. They were reputed to have a German school within their house, which at this period meant a school in which boys could learn reading, writing and some arithmetic before they started in the Latin school proper. Since this form of teaching was permitted to almost anyone, the report may be true. It also proves, however, that the fraters' activities in the educational field were negligible, even though they came to the assistance of the Brothers in Culm in 1508.

Two other houses were finally founded from Münster: Hildesheim and Marburg, while Merseburg was an offshoot of this latter. Since we shall have to devote special attention to Hildesheim, we shall deal first with Marburg and Merseburg.

From the very beginning the Brotherhouse in Marburg was a chapter with canons and a collegial church where a provost (or rector) was to exercise authority and maintain the privileges such as those granted by Eugenius IV and Calixtus III to the Brotherhouses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel. This foundation was the work of a married couple, the Henry Bondes, who offered their house and garden with the intention of having a church built there. When everything was ready they wished to hand over the entire property to the Brethren of the Common Life, as they lived in the Brotherhouses. Henry asked Pope Sixtus IV's permission to carry out this plan, and received a letter of consent on April 25th 1477.³ The plan had already been discussed the year before at the Münster colloquium, and evidently in a positive manner, since the delegates took it for granted that they would have to give financial support to the foundation.⁴ There is no

1 Kl. Löffler, Das Gedächtnisbuch 46.

2 60 charters in Stads-archiv: bearbeiteit von Lisch, i.d. Jahrbücher des Vereins für Mecklenb. Gesch. und Alterth. IV. 1839. L. Schulze, Brüder des gemeinsamen Lebens in R. Encyklopedie f. prot. Theologie und Kirche III 1897, 495-496, B. Lesker, die Rostocker Fraterherren, Frankfurter zeitgemässe Broschüren VIII 1887, 137.

3 Doebner 176.

4 Doebner 267.

[p. 427]

mention of the Brothers' activities, only that they could pray (or ‘say,’ dicatur) the office according to the Mainz and not the Roman custom. One of the canons would act as pastor for the inmates of the house, namely the canons, priests, clerici and servants, while retaining the rights of the parish clergy.¹ Despite the communal life, from the very beginning the emphasis was different from that in Deventer and Zwolle. Nothing at all is said of any hostel, teaching or pastoral work among the schoolboys. Little or nothing is known further about this house, apart from a few reports that it was officially visited by rector van Springborn of Münster in 1497, 1499, and 1502. He was usually accompanied by the rector of Hildesheim. The year 1526 saw the advent of the Reformation and in 1528 an agreement was reached with the eight Brothers still extant. Their incomes were transferred to the university founded in 1527.

The Brotherhouse in Merseburg² was the last to be established, being founded from Marburg in 1503. The Brothers had no influence on education in the town, although they did accept boys in their house. The priests of the parish defended their pastoral rights against the Brothers-as often happened-but the fraters of Merseburg had neither the time nor the opportunity to overcome this resistance by tact, caution and devotion. It was only twenty years after this beginning that the Reformation penetrated, if not the municipality and the diocese, at least the minds of the common people. On August 9th 1526, a messenger from Merseburg approached the rector of Hildesheim and informed him that the fraters were no longer there (in Merseburg). The rector (of Hildesheim) was disappointed. He would have visited them had he not been prevented by poverty and his own tribulations in the religious dispute. According to L. Schulz the house perished in 1537, partly as a result of the last rector's over-lavish handling of the finances. One of the fraters became a parish priest.

We are much better informed concerning the origins and history of the house at Hildesheim, thanks to the Annals written by the fourth rector, Peter of Dieppurch (Deiburg, 1475-1491).³ To judge from his

1 Doebner 178.

2 L. Schulze, R.E. III 3, 495.

3 Edited with several other documents by R. Doebner, Annalen und Akten der Brüder des gemeinsamen Lebens im Lüchtenhove zu Hildesheim. Band IX Quellen und Darstellungen der Geschichte Niedersachsens, Hannover und Leipzig 1903. Quoted as Doebner.

[p. 428]

attitude to Münster's attempts to achieve a stricter organisation of the German Brotherhouses, thus strengthening the power of the rector of the Münster Brotherhouse, and from his additions to the first part of the Annals, he favoured the independence of each house or at least of his own. This aim might be considered a respect for ‘liberty,’ religious liberty, a preservation of what was felt to be the original ideal; a personal intense piety, not too hedged about by regulations. It is not unreasonable to attribute such motives to Peter of Dieburg, since an independent, free and open spirit seems to emanate from the four Excurses which he incorporates in his Annals. He also viewed in this light the activities of a Brother Godfried, who lived in Hildesheim for ten years in solitary piety, in order to prepare the leading spirits for the fraters' coming. According to another report he had done the same in Herford some ten years earlier. By his supplement to the Annals, Peter of Dieburg certainly tried to diminish the house of Münster's co-operation in founding the congregation of Hildesheim, and increase that of Herford.¹ Barnikol devotes a chapter to Bruder Godfried, ‘der Devoten Apostel.’² In the ideas of Brother Godifried he sees ‘die beste Tradition der Moderna Devotio,’³ a contrast to the pedantic monastic reform of John Busch.⁴ Had he confined himself to this statement, I might have been able to agree with him, although even here he makes an arbitrary choice between the various forms in reality displayed by the Devotio Moderna. Barnikol, however, goes further: ‘Für Bruder Godfried war die Kirche und der kirchliche Heilsweg persönlich innerlich und practisch überwunden: seine Frommigkeit war bodenständig, mündig und kirchenfrei. Kirchenglaube und Kirchenheilsweg stehen bei ihm nicht an erster Stelle, sondern sind ihm, wenn auch unbewüsst gegenüber der Moderna Devotio minder wichtig.’ ‘Sein Leben und Wirken bleib ohne Kirchenschütz und Kirchen Segen... einfacher Kleriker... ist er... für Tausende ein vorbildlicher devoter Priester und Seelsorger geworden.’⁵ On examining Dieburg's text it is clear that his statements in no way justify such a conclusion: ‘Afterwards he (Godfried) came to Hildesheim and remained there in spite of everything, labouring for a future Brotherhouse, and gaining the souls of young and old. He had so much success in this work that he not only gained members for convents and monasteries from the neighbourhood of Hildesheim, but also extended his labours to Herford and the Münster region.’⁶ Inducing men and women to

1 Barnikol o.c. 98-102.

2 Ibid., 76-111.

3 Ibid., 84.

4 Ibid., 85.

5 Ibid., 84-85.

6 Barnikol 83. Doebner 324.

[p. 429]

enter convents and monasteries seems to me the opposite of a ‘kirchenfreie’ religious belief. Here another attempt is made to change the true ‘Devotion’ of the fifteenth century into the sixteenth century reformation. This is all the more striking in Barnikol, since he later mentions with some approval: ‘Das Kolloquium suchte mit Bedacht dem unwesen umherstreifender Devoten zu steuern.’¹ Geert Groote too persuaded some people to enter monasteries, and the founding of monasteries is later considered as one of his titles to fame. This may be ‘bodenständig,’ but it was not ‘kirchenfrei,’ and not a disregard of ‘Kirchenglaube und Kirchenheilsweg’! With Barnikol one might sum up Brother Godfried's work in Dieburg's words: ‘non sumus religiosi, sed in seculo religiose vivere nitimur et volumus,’² but it is impossible to say that they: ‘das katholisch-mönchische Frommigkeitsideal des Mittelalters innerlich gesprengt und prinzipiell überwunden haben.’³ For why did all the Brothers, those of Hildesheim not excepted, incorporate all the monastic practices in their customs and manner of life: they prayed the hours, attended holy Mass, held examinations of conscience, practised mortification and humility, lived in poverty and wore drab clothing.

It seems to me that Barnikol, on the basis of statements made by Peter of Dieburg, describes the first rector of Hildesheim, Bernard von Büderich (1441-1457), a contemporary and collaborator of Brother Godfried, with words more suited to the time and circumstances of circa 1491. They would then have the following significance: mit diesser bewussten Abkehr von jedwedem Zwange in religiöser Entscheidungen ... verbindet sich das innige Verkenntnis zum Reich Gottes, das tatsächlich nicht der römischen Kirche entspricht. Die ecclesia Dei ... ist ein religiöser Begriff.⁴ He thinks that the ideas of this Bernard, who had been to Rome, were not in keeping with the mentality which gained prominence in Münster after Henry von Ahaus, and that the colloquium hastened the founding of Hildesheim in order to get this Bernard away from Münster. He says that according to him: ‘Sorgsamer sollte man darüber wachen, nicht in überspannte Frömmigkeit (religiositas, Möncherei) zugeraten, als fürchten: man könne ja mit recht allzu grösser weltformigkeit und Eitelkeit beschuldigt werden,’⁵ and finally that we must not sell our liberty, singulare decus christiane religionis at our expense, or force anyone to enter a monastic order.⁶ These eloquent texts, how-

1 Barnikol 150, n. 7.

2 Barnikol 86, Doebner 113.

3 Barnikol 86.

4 Ibid., 110.

5 Barnikol 107.

6 Ibid., 109.

[p. 430]

ever, lose much of their impact when one realizes that the first is a bad and tendentious translation of Dieburg's Latin and that the second has not the meaning imputed by Barnikol in the context in which it is used. In any case it is a thankless task to try to define with texts, taken from a letter written in 1491, the personal opinion, not of the writer, but of a rector who had been dead for more than 30 years. The first text is taken from a description of Bernard of Büderich, written after his death in the annals of the year 1467. They do indeed refer to the person in question here, but they are taken from a passage which describes how the congregation of the Brothers was attacked in the days of Bernard of Büderich.¹ Certain religious were prominent among these attackers. The Brothers are in their opinion too strict and show up the looser monastic life in an unfavourable light. The devil plays his part because he sees his prey escaping as the monasteries and even the secular clergy mend their ways as a result of the Brothers' example. One must thus believe that certain magistri and doctores were set to work painstakingly to examine the law, not in the cause of their own salvation, but to see if they could find some description of religion (religio) which would make it possible to forbid the vita clericorum. Then follows the text of which I have given the translation above: ‘Et solicicius inquiritur, ne excedatur in nimia religiositate quam timeatur ne quandoque argui contingat de nimia secularitate aut vanitate.’ Dieburg is sometimes difficult to translate, and this passage is typical. In any case I should be tempted to read timeatur as timetur in the indicative; it is indeed in the comparative sense, after the comparative form sollicicius. Thus we obtain ‘they are more solicitous in examining whether there is excess of piety (or monasticism) than they are fearful of being accused of too much worldliness or vanity.’ This is something completely different. In any case, it is not Bernard of Büderich who is speaking but the opponents of the Brothers. Nor is there any indication of a ‘must,’ a ‘sollen.’ It is merely stated that the opponents are seeking arguments against the Brothers.

Something similar could also be said of the second quotation. This and others are taken from a letter written by Peter of Dieburg in 1490 to his colleague, the rector of the Münster Brotherhouse. It was in answer to the latter's suggestion, to be discussed at the Münster Colloquium of 1490, that the pope should be asked for authority and privilege to consider as apostate those priests who left the Brother-

1 Doebner 29.

[p. 431]

hood without entering a monastic order. They would then be seized with the help of the temporal powers and incarcerated in a monastery prison. Dieburg tells him of the attitude in his house towards such persons: ‘We allow them to go only after they have exchanged their Brother's habit for secular garments and promised to enter an order. Only those who have been ordained are really obliged to take this last step, but the lay Brothers too were permitted to leave under the plea of aspiring to higher things. If they do remain in the world, however, and retain our dress, they are excommunicated, unless they go to Hungary, Livonia or England. This seems to us in conscience to be sufficient, for we are not members of a religious order, but strive and desire to live in a religious manner in the world. It would seem to me to be to our disadvantage to try to obtain an order from the Apostolic See that such persons should be compelled either to enter an order or to return. It would do us no honour to sell our liberty, the great glory of the Christian religion, and with great difficulty obtain chains and prisons in order to please and copy the religious orders. We should then become slaves, just as if we had taken a solemn vow. The only thing to do then would be to accept a monastic rule. I advocated this at first, but having since heard Gabriel Biel, I think differently.’¹ Peter of Dieburg is thus quite simply defending the principles of the Brothers against the Münster trend which was developing in the direction of monasticism. In this he draws support from Gabriel Biel, although he had first thought differently. This alone should prevent us from taking these words to represent the ideas of the first rector of Hildesheim, Bernard of Büderich. The text has nothing to do with a conscious rejection of compulsion in religious decisions. Such compulsion may suit those who have taken monastic vows, but it is not good for the members of their institution, who, after all, made no vows. He is doing nothing more than defend his own institution. Nevertheless, the reference to freedom, as the singulare decus christianae religionis, has a remarkable sound for a person living in 1490. It reveals a desire for freedom which will not have been confined to Peter of Dieburg. If this desire, which is also found among the Humanists, was very widespread, it is no wonder that Luther was lavish in his use of the words free, and freedom. They sounded well. We should also bear in mind perhaps that since 1463 the company of Brothers formed a group of canons who served a col-

1 Doebner 113.

[p. 432]

legiate church. They were therefore seculars in fact, those who tried to live in seculo. We shall discuss this later.

Before taking a closer look at the ideas of Peter of Dieburg, it would be perhaps useful to touch upon the history of the house of Hildesheim, although without going into personal or local problems which do not contribute to our evaluation of the whole. From 1436 to 1440 the foundation was prepared by Brother Godfried who had already done similar work in Herford. In 1439 he obtained the bishop's permission for the Brothers to settle in a small house. He then turned to the colloquium at Münster for approval and asked for Brothers to be sent. As usual the colloquium first sent two persons at their own expense, to size up conditions on the spot. These brought out their report in 1440 and the colloquium then decided to send the priest Bernard of Büderich to Hildesheim with another priest and two clerici from the Münster house. This was the beginning of the house of Hildesheim which, despite the support of Münster and Herford, had many difficult years ahead of it. The difficulties were caused by the inadequate accommodation, opposition on the part of many groups, runaway novices and clerici, and infectious diseases. Several passages in the Annals reveal that these three categories, priests, clerici and lay brothers were to be found in Hildesheim. It is, however, difficult to find out exactly who formed part of the congregation between 1440 and 1494. The first members from Münster and Herford were only considered to be on loan and later returned to their own house, as did those who later went from Hildesheim to the house's foundations at Kassel, Merseburg, (Berlicum) and Magdeburg. They remained part members of the house from which they had come. Despite a list of the deceased Brothers¹ and an incomplete account of those who lived in the house for a time and later went away again,² it is difficult to follow the history of the whole. There was considerable movement in and out of the house. In the period from 1440 to 1468 five or six of the Hildesheim Brothers entered a monastery, three became rectors of Brotherhouses or Sisterhouses elsewhere and ten died.³ That Hildesheim, in spite of the difficulties of accommodation, the opposition of various groups, the disagreement with Münster about the union, was able to support such traffic, besides bringing about three new foundations, or at least providing members for them, speaks well for the vitality of this house.

1 Doebner 301.

2 Doebner 315.

3 Doebner 8.

[p. 433]

As a result of the plague of 1463, the house at Hildesheim had acquired a somewhat unusual collection of persons. This emerged at the election which was necessitated by the death of the second rector, John Loen († 1463). Seven priests and two clerics took part in the election. The novices and lay brothers were not considered entitled to vote.¹ Here too the clerici will have eventually become priests, provided the circumstances were favourable. In the case of the priests, however, it is only possible to prove that two of them were present in the house beforehand as clerici. These were Herman of Rintelen and our friend Peter of Dieburg (Dieppurch) who had entered the congregation together. Herman of Rintelen was the first member to be ordained priest under Bernard of Büderich, the first rector of Hildesheim (1440-1457). He entered from the school of Hildesheim and for the last 17 years of his life was confessor of the Sisters of Eldages.² He died in 1491. Peter of Dieburg began his career in Hildesheim as cook, but later became a priest and rector of the house of which he wrote the Annals³ (1475-1491). The sources give no further details of the lives of the remaining five priests before their ordination, but they do indicate their later career. John of Calcar, for instance, later left the Brotherhood, John of Wesel was rector in Berlicum, Herman Bruse became a secular priest, and Henninghus Zuchem of Lübeck later transferred to a monastery of the Canons Regular.⁴ It is reasonable to assume, however, that they all entered as cleric and were later ordained priest. The Hildesheimers were thus anything but fortunate in their first Brothers. The two persons mentioned in 1463 as clerici appear later as priests. Theses are Albert of Calcar⁵ and John Wessel who later became rector of the Wittenhof in Kassel.⁶ Of the Brothers who died between 1440 and 1490⁷ twelve were priests, five clerics and four lay brothers⁸.

It is clear from this that the community consisted of priests, clerics and lay brothers. These last performed the most humble work, although clerici were sometimes employed for this (for example the cooking). Others entered the novitiate to be clerics and eventually to become priests. The ordinary city school, in this case that of Hildesheim, was the fitting place for the training of the clericus. According

1 Doebner 74.

2 Ibid., 128-129.

3 Ibid., 316-317.

4 Ibid., 64.

5 Compare pp. 64 and 95.

6 Compare 64, 87.

7 Ibid., p. 300.

8 Ibid., 300-321; Johannes van Leeuwarden, see also p. 283.

[p. 434]

to the statutes the novice master had to be capable of supplementing this school study somewhat: he should be a Brother qui eis doctrina et magisterio praesit et in artibus liberalibus instituat.¹ This last naturally means very little, since many things had to be crammed into the novitiate, which only lasted a year. These sources are as silent as those of Zwolle, Deventer, Doesburg, Gouda and Emmerich on how the clerici were trained in philosophy and theology-subjects which we consider essential for the priest. One thing is certain. None of these future priests attended university. These fraters were not interested in higher education.

The sources, which comprise roughly four hundred pages and give all sorts of details concerning the internal, external, financial, legal and administrative position of the house and its occupants, make no mention of study or the practice of learning. For the Brothers these do not exist. In the statutes too, various posts are listed such as: rector, vicerector, procurator, cellarius, head of the department for copying and book-binding, rubricator, novice-master, verger, cantor, librarian and so forth, but the post of professor or teacher does not occur.² And just as it was no one's task to instruct the members of their own house, so the fraters had nothing to do with the school of Hildesheim, which, indeed, is scarcely mentioned.

One trait, which we came across elsewhere, is clearly revealed here: the desire to concern themselves with the fate of the schoolboys and especially to house a number of them in a building intended specially for this purpose and under the direction of the fraters. The holding of collations for all the schoolboys was rendered difficult because the Brothers lived so far away.³ In 1491, however, the rector referred to the fact that for fifty years the Brothers had held collation for all the schoolboys who came to them.⁴ By this he understood short addresses and discourses for the boys. The Brothers were also much concerned with their temporal welfare. As early as 1466 they decided to devote their surplus to poor schoolboys and other poor people. They also looked after the boys' money for them.⁵ In 1491 the money chests for this purpose were entrusted to two Brothers. These chests had separate locks and each of these locks had two keys. The intention was that two Brothers could only open the locks together, so that no

1 Doebner 229.

2 Ibid., 224-235.

3 Ibid., 56.

4 Ibid., 125.

5 Ibid., 58.

[p. 435]

reflection could be cast on the ideal of communal property.¹ In 1486 two executors of the will of the late provost of Wenden came to say that the latter had bequeathed the Brothers two hundred guilders to subsidize a house for schoolboys (a hostel or domus pauperum) which they were to buy as soon as possible. The will laid down the purpose of the bequest: two hundred guilders for the purchase of a dwelling, a house in a place suitable for the lodging of schoolboys. The fraters were to instruct them and lead them if possible to the priestly or monastic state, if God so willed it.² The Brothers spent the whole summer searching for such a house, but without success. They had already attempted such a plan earlier, but the scholaster (of the cathedral) had forbidden it. They wanted thus to make certain this time. Meanwhile they enjoyed the interest and were able to use it for their own house. This was in accordance with the provisions of the will. In addition, a nephew of the provost had been an inmate of the house for almost two years. The provost rejoiced in the progress his nephew had made in learning and virtue. The Brothers, however, had not been paid for the last year. It had always been one of their ideals to have such a house-as soon as possible and without delay: ‘but the chapter has ordered us-under pain of losing our possessions-not to do anything to offend the municipality, and the canons did not wish us to press the matter of the hostel, or at least counselled us strongly against this.’³ The municipality protects the city school and prevents the foundation of anything resembling a private school. Even the Brothers' plan for a hostel in which they could hear the boys' lessons already aroused suspicion.

Although we can still detect here the old desire to train candidates for the regular or secular priesthood, all the members were no longer so animated by the original ideal that this group could be held up as an élite in contrast to the various types of regular clergy. As we saw, there was considerable coming and going, even from the very beginning. Many of the fraters could not stand the poverty and humiliation, or sought to realise their ideal in monastic orders among the Carthusians or Canons Regular, the Franciscans or Dominicans.⁴ The chronicler Peter of Dieburg sometimes complains that the function of confessor to the Sisters was too popular altogether.⁵ The living was easy and they enjoyed a freedom and independence in conflict with

1 Doebner 81.

2 Ibid., 208, 209.

3 Ibid., 110.

4 Ibid., 75.

5 Ibid., 129.

[p. 436]

the ideal of a communal life. It was also difficult to retain the notion of communal property. The chronicler mentions three cases in which the holder of this function came to a bad end.¹ One procured and collected money which he spent as he liked. When warned, he promised to mend his ways, but lapsed again and was sent away. Another had held this function among the Sisters for thirteen years, against the wishes of the authorities. He then desired to return, and was well received, but he had to promise to fulfil certain conditions, which he did. Another, Lambert of Rostok, who had run away, received permission from the rector to visit his friend in the house. The Brothers were rather critical of this decision. An attempt was made to lure Lambert back to the fold, but he preferred to become confessor in a Sisterhouse. Since the Brothers in Hildesheim served only one convent, which was already supplied with two fraters, he was sent with a dimissorial letter to Münster, to see if he could do any better there. However, he lost all contact with Hildesheim and died in 1481.² In the new statutes the duties of such Brothers living outside their own house were more closely defined. It was only after some hesitation that they agreed to send a confessor to the Sisters of Ploen at the request of the bishop of Lübeck.³

Meanwhile the house with church of Lüchtenhofe belonging to Hildesheim had received the statutes of a collegiate church in 1463. The first rector, Bernard of Büderich, had already insistently urged the community to take this step. It was he indeed, who had received the necessary privilege from Pope Eugenius IV in 1439. The need for such a status arose from the opposition which the Brothers were encountering in various circles in Hildesheim. Their institution was meeting with resistance. There were already so many monasteries that it was unthinkable for the municipality to permit another, even supposing they felt the inclination to do so. When Bernard of Brüderich was in Rome in 1439, while still a frater of the Münster house, he was advised to transform the institution into a collegiate church with chapter. This gave many legal advantages and would silence the opposition. It was not necessary for such a chapter and collegiate church to adopt the exalted titles of provost, deacon, canon and capitulum. The Brothers were allowed to retain their own customs but had authority to make new statutes. They could also hold collations for the schoolboys, as was done in Zwolle and Deventer.⁴ Bernard appeared

1 Doebner 76.

2 Ibid., 74-75, 77.

3 Ibid., 133.

4 Ibid., 56.

[p. 437]

to be in favour of the suggestion and supported it, but the Brothers were either neutral or against, and urged Bernard to postpone taking any action. The objections put forward by some of the Hildesheim Brothers are quite remarkable. Some of them thought that this renewal would lead them gradually to depart from the original humility and that they would be acting as seculars. The following objection is typical for the Brothers' ideas on the devotion: the result of allowing such a college (of canons) will be that the canons will be constantly occupied with the ceremonies and singing, and would live in other matters according to their worldly position, walking according to the outward man and neglecting the labour of their hands and the transforming of the inner man. There is also the danger that those persons who can sing well will be selected, while those with better characters will be relegated to the background or even rejected altogether. To this Bernard replied that singing was not an essential part of such a college, and certainly not the daily singing. This happened more as a result of the foundations and the quantity of property, more from the established care and the competent administration of prebends and other necessities. He was therefore also opposed to any increase in income so that they would be obliged, even from necessity, to pay heed to their manual work. There was in any case little danger of wealth, in view of the many monasteries in Hildesheim. If people desired anything grandiose they should address themselves to these monasteries, and give us a pittance for Masses, vigils, psalms and suchlike. Wealth was certainly to be avoided.¹ Fear of altering the character of the Brethren of the Common Life, and above all of losing their inner devotion, made the rector decide to shelve this proposal for the time being.

When the second rector, John Loen, died in 1463, and an election to choose a successor was imminent, while so many members had died of the plague that the foundation was again threatened with extinction, the survivors once more sought their salvation in the foundation of a college of canons and a collegiate church. They thought too that this step might lead the rector to consult the Brothers more about the problems besetting the house. They finally decided to accept the privilege and transform the fraternity into a college-always under condition that no changes should be made in the aims, customs, dress and name of the Brothers. Every candidate for the rectorship of the

1 Doebner 57.

[p. 438]

house would have to promise not to relinquish any of the old statutes.¹ The introduction to the newly formulated statutes clearly states that, although they have adopted the title of college, the old rules are confirmed. They are to continue their care for the schoolboys and retain their communal life and possessions.

The introduction concludes thus: the aim is to lead a pure, communal life, without any personal possessions, and to dwell in harmony and love through mortification, abdication of individual will and the practice of obedience.² The chapel of the house thus became a collegiate church and the Brothers formed a chapter which could draw up its own statutes.³ The statutes included the relevant bull of pope Eugenius IV whereby the same privileges were granted to the houses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel, although the names of provost and canon were retained.⁴ Hildesheim did not adopt this latter measure, although the Brothers did call the assembly of the associated houses in Münster the capitulum generale, and that of the members of their own house capitulum. Among the functions of this capitulum was the election of the rector (but not the provost who was later called senior).⁵ The members still consisted of priests, clerici and lay brothers, no one was accepted as novice before the age of eighteen or as member of the community before nineteen. Although no solemn vows were taken, the Brothers had to have the intention of remaining for the rest of their lives. Each Brother had also to declare before a notary that he renounced all claim to anything he might earn or inherit. This was to become communal property.⁶ In spite of this promise and renouncing of personal possessions, the Brothers were not regarded as religious. It was for this reason that rector Peter of Dieburg was unwilling to take compulsory measures against those who wished to leave. In this he was endorsing the opinion of Gabriel Biel († 1490).⁷

This anxiety to preserve the inner devotion, which might perhaps be smothered by the many ceremonies of the collegiate churches, seems gratifying, but one must not deduce from this that the fraters

1 Doebner 63-64. The Brotherhouse of Münster and the other houses in the West had not yet adopted the privilege at this time.

2 Ibid., 208.

3 Ibid., 210.

4 Ibid., 210-211.

5 Canonici are, however, mentioned several times in the Ghent calendar, 336, 337.

6 Ibid., 219, 238

7 Ibid., 113.

[p. 439]

refrained from outward ceremonies. From the very beginning the Hildesheim Brothers prayed the Hours together as was done in Deventer and Zwolle.¹ Just as in other churches the faithful could set up foundations for Masses, vigils and memorials. That many did so is evident from the necrologium of Lüchtenhof² and from the list of benefactors.³ They even imitated the other monastics in issuing fraternity letters, whereby the benefactors of the house could share in the good works of the Brothers.⁴ The calendar of feasts⁵ and the regulations for the ceremonies⁶ testify to the anxiety that the liturgy should be celebrated with due solemnity. At the end of the sixteenth century the Brothers differed nothing in this respect from what could be observed in all the churches of regulars and seculars of this period. These ceremonies probably fulfilled the religious needs of the late Middle Ages. In all this the Brothers attempted to find some help in intensifying their inner devotion, but they could also descend to formalism. One is not justified in dismissing these rites and ceremonies among all non-brothers as mere externalism and formalism, while assuming the contrary with regard to the fraters. Or indeed, as more often happens, in ignoring this multiplicity of ceremonies which often appear to us excessive.

It was in the lean years, when the Hildesheim house had few members and a slender income, that a favourable opportunity presented itself for beginning a new house. On July 20th 1454 landgrave Ludwig of Hessen donated to the rector and Brothers of Hildesheim a house and garden, known as ‘Weissenhof,’ situated in the town of Kassel, to form the basis of a new Brotherhouse. This gift was negotiated by the priest Nicolas Tant of Alsfelt, Herman of Werhem, first rector of Wesel and subsequently rector of Sisters in Münster, and Bernard of Büderich, rector of Hildesheim, as laid down in the charter; but according to the Annals the prime mover was Herman of Werhem, who was born in Hessen and was acquainted with the landgrave.⁷ Any tension which may have existed between this Herman and Bernard of Hildesheim must have vanished by this period or at least to a great extent evaporated.⁸ The Hildesheim Brothers were to supply members for the new house, so that they might pray for the founder and his family through hours, Masses, vigils and other cere-

1 Doebner 7.

2 Ibid., 283-298.

3 Ibid., 299-324.

4 Ibid., 330.

5 Ibid., 334-344.

6 Ibid., 350, 374.

7 Ibid., 25.

8 See above p. 437.

[p. 440]

monies and prayers. This already venerable formula was well suited to the Brothers. The document makes no mention of their distinctive character except to note that they did not beg. No word is said of any pastoral or educational activities on their part.¹ The founders may have had no desire for them, or they may not have known about them. What they wanted was people to pray for them and they therefore took measures in case the fraters were not able to take up residence. They decided who was to go in their place. The rector of the Hildesheim house sent two priests and two lay brothers to Kassel, and these set up a new foundation there in 1455. At the outset they received financial support from Hildesheim. The house also went through a difficult period at the beginning. It remained associated with Hildesheim and there is no report in this period of any educational or teaching activity. The Reformation was officially introduced in 1526. By 1529 there were still ten Brothers in residence, and these seem to have worked on until 1534, when they were banished. It was then, or perhaps earlier, that the rector John of Soest went to Hildesheim where, according to the necrologium, he lived for thirty years. He died in 1560.²

When things had begun to look up for the Brothers in Hildesheim, and the house was well supplied with members and money, they decided to begin a new foundation to the east of Kassel, in Magdeburg. This was probably at the request of a physician, Dr. Thomas. The Hildesheimers bore far the greatest portion of the cost of furniture and installation for this new foundation. They rented a house in 1482 and sent two of the fraters to Magdeburg. However, the people's opposition was so great, inflamed by the deacon of the Magdeburg Neustadt, that the lease was broken. The purchase of a house in the Neustadt, with the assistance of the abbot of St. Janskamp, fanned the flames. Nevertheless, four Brothers settled there in 1483, and the Hildesheimers made considerable financial sacrifices. It was not until the papal legate, Berthold, had intervened in 1484, that the church and temporal administrations were in any way reconciled. The house, however, only began to develop in a subsequent period. It maintained constant contact with the Brothers of Hildesheim.³

1 Doebner 166-169. Annalen 25.

2 Doebner 286.

3 Doebner 90-93.

[p. 441]

What the Hildesheimers had introduced in 1564 after some hesitation and with certain reservations, and what had been proscribed in Marburg from the time of the foundation, i.e., the transformation of the congregation of Brothers into a chapter according to the privileges granted by Popes Eugenius IV and Calixtus III, now met with less resistance elsewhere.¹ Not only do various houses in the Netherlands seem to have adopted the privilege, several of those in Germany did so too-notably the houses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel.² On the other hand, certain German chapters, which had existed as such for a long time, pledged themselves to the communal life and to community of goods and incomes. From henceforth thus, they consisted of provost, deacon and canons leading a communal life. Such communities appear to have existed in the eighth century and were later found in various places in Italy. While the transition from Brother to canon was no great step, that from canon to Brother of the Common Life signified a complete transformation. Instead of living in his own house with a household, private income and complete liberty of movement, the canon was confronted with a common table and dormitory and was forbidden any monetary transactions. This must have seemed like renouncing the world and entering a monastery, except that the rules were different and no vows were taken. In the transition from Brother to canon, from chapel to collegiate church, from congregation to chapter, there was not so much emphasis placed on the singing of the hours that it smothered the inner devovotion and relegated it to the background. We already saw, however, that the Hildesheim Brothers feared this might be so. Yet, if it was possible to overcome this danger here, the reversal from canon to Brother of the Common Life was more drastic. The chief promoter of the development from chapter to congregation practising communal life was the famous theologian Gabriel Biel. He may have made the acquaintance of the Brothers in the Cologne house of Weidenbach, during his theological studies in Cologne in 1453. The first evidence of this trend is the foundation of the Brotherhouse of Marienthal near Geisenheim in Rheingau,³ which became a Brotherhouse with canonical additions. The life of the house was to be modelled on that of

1 See hereafter p. 449

2 See hereafter p. 451

3 W.M. Landeen, Gabriel Biel and the Devotio Moderna in Germany: Research studies. A quarterly publication of Washington State University 27 (1959) Part I and II, 134-229.

[p. 442]

the fraters in Cologne, but the Brothers had to keep the canonical hours. In addition they had to sing a Mass every Saturday in honour of the Mother of God and four times a year a vigil and Mass for the founders of the house.¹

Some time later, in 1465, Cologne founded the house of Königstein, north of Wiesbaden, or at least contributed to its foundation. In fact, count Eberhard V of Königstein changed the existing priestly prebends of the parish church into a new fund destined for a chapter which was to consist of Brethren of the Common Life.² Thus arose a chapter of Brothers, ‘Kugelherren.’ They were to follow an Augustinian rule, without becoming Canons Regular, and fulfil the canonical hours day and night with prayer and singing. They were to help in caring for the sick and training the young. This included supervising their religious practices. The undertaking was approved by the archbishop of Mainz on August 23rd 1466.³ There is no mention of a school.

In 1468 Gabriel Biel took up the deanery of the church of St. Mark at Butzbach⁴ at the request of count Eberhart III of Eppstein and of other nobles of the district. The intention was to transform it into a chapter church so that the canons would become Brethren of the Common Life under Biel's direction. Biel had completed his organisation by April 30th 1470.⁵ In 1471 the houses of Marienthal, Königstein and Butzbach formed a union such as existed between Münster, Cologne and Wesel. Their relationship to the colloquium of Münster was very loose. The rector rarely visited it, nor did it succeed in drawing them into the larger union.⁶ It appears from the Copialbuch in Butzbach that a school already existed there long before the Brothers came, for it is mentioned in 1433. It was a parish school such as existed during this period in most places of any significance. The pupils were taught reading and writing and the very first principles of Latin. Those boys who wished to continue their education went on to attend a city school, for example that of Emmerich, Deventer, Zwolle or Cologne. Besides possessing the right of patronage of the church, the counts of Eppstein also had the right to appoint the school rector.

1 Landeen 153.

2 Charter, Landeen 158.

3 Ibid., 159.

4 H.A. Oberman, The harvest of medieval theology, Harvard 1963, 15.

5 Landeen 166.

6 Landeen p. 176.

[p. 443]

The count thus appointed the head of this school and also the bell ringers, which was the normal practice. It was not this school which was put on equal footing with those of Deventer and Zwolle but the domus pauperum or hostel which the Brothers founded later. ‘Zeu der Ere Gotths in Nutze armer und ander Schüler, dij darin uffgenomen werden nach wyse der Schulen zu Deventer und Schwolle.’¹ The new school referred to in 1470 is not the school building, but the setting up of a hostel and this new building indicate an expansion in the educational programme. The Brothers did not give lessons at this school. In 1481 they hired a rector, a man who was not a member of the Brotherhood, just as the count had done before.² From the contract drawn up between the Brothers and the head of the school, it appears that he was required to set an example to the school children, to take charge of the school, draw up the programme of lessons and see that this was adhered to when the Brothers had given their approval, to sing during processions and with the boys in the choir, and to keep order. Each side could give six months notice. There was to be a separate teacher for each class, which also resembles the city school.

The Brothers were gradually beginning to think of themselves more as canons and adopted all the privileges of Eugenius IV and Paul II. Their language also became adapted to their new position. In the original charter of Königstein the Brothers are called ‘omnes fratres nostri concapitulares’: no one will be admitted to the house ‘in canonicum’, as a canon,³ ‘so long as the canon shall maintain the union.’ In a document issued by the Brothers it is said that ‘Henricus Pulpeti praepositus et capitulum ecclesiae beatae Mariae virginis in Königstein Moguntinensis diocesis’ joins the general chapter of the Brethren of the Common Life.⁴

We discover a similar situation in the monastery of Wolf, on the Moselle, founded in 1478.⁵ This place had formerly possessed a church of Our Lady, served by five secular priests. In 1476 the patrons of the church, Frederik, ‘palsgrave and Duke of Bavaria’ and his brother Christoffel, margrave of Baden, counts of Sponheim, requested pope Sixtus IV to be allowed to transform the church of Our Lady with the four altars into a collegiate church which would be served by a

1 Ms. 50 fol. 32a. Staatsarchive in Darmstadt; quored by Landeen, no. 129, p. 171.

2 Ms. 50 fol. 31, in n. 9. ed. by W. Diehl, Schulordnungen des Grossherzogtums Hessen, Mon. Germ. paedagogica, Berlin 1903 XXVII 483-487; XXVIII, 14, 15, 386, 387.

3 Landeen 174.

4 Ibid., 176.

5 Ibid., 178.

[p. 444]

number of priests and clerici having a communal refectory and dormitory. This had already been done with the churches of Marienthal, Königstein and Butzbach according to the privilege granted to these churches by Paul II. The Pope granted this request on May 1st 1477 and the abbot of Sponheim also approved the plan. The month after, on June 18th 1477, the general union of Marienthal, Königstein and Butzbach met and delegated Gabriel Biel and Benedict of Helmstadt to hold the usual inspection and to put the plan into execution. By July 3rd 1478 the final touches had been put and the opening ceremony took place.¹ This was followed by the election of a rector and the drawing up of the rights and duties of the Brothers. The foundation began in a small way with the rector and three Brothers and at the outset had to contend with the usual poverty and hostility on the part of the local inhabitants.² This developed into a veritable struggle for life. The people clamoured for the return of the secular priests and they were finally given a chapel in the village. The first Brothers found the going too hard and had to be replaced by men from Cologne. These eventually overcame the resistance, but not until the 16th century, around 1517. Meanwhile, in 1499, the Brothers developed a most remarkable plan in the domain of study and teaching. But this belongs to the following period.

The founding of these canon-brotherhouses was naturally made easier by the fact that several of the older houses had already undertaken the transformation from Brothers to canons. These Rhineland houses in their turn could promote the founding of similar institutions in Württemberg. Here too Gabriel Biel was prime mover and principal leader and incidentally a welcome instrument in the hand of Count Eberhart I. This enterprising man, of sound but sometimes rather strange ideas, founded the University of Tübingen, and with the permission of pope Sixtus IV allocated two thirds of the income of the chapter of Regular canons at Sindelfingen to the University. The remaining income was destined for the Canons Regular of Windesheim and in this way he came into contact with the Modern Devotion. He was convinced that a third of the income reserved for secular canons would be quite sufficient for eight Regular Windesheim Canons. In this way the duties which weighed so heavy on the prebendaries could still be carried out. It seemed, however, that he

1 Landeen 179.

2 Ibid., 180, 181.

[p. 445]

was out in his calculations. The foundation did not develop in peace and harmony. Disputes arose between prior and canons and in the end no more novices were accepted. Pope Leo X dissolved the foundation in 1517, after the Windesheimers had already, so it seems, been replaced by other Regulars. This episode has no bearing on the history of the Modern Devotion, but it does give an insight into the mentality of count Eberhart who promoted the practice of learning with the aid of church goods.¹ He now founded within his domain several chapters of Canons who practised the communal life and may thus be termed Brethren of the Common Life.

The first to be transformed was the city church of Urach. On May 1st 1477, with permission from pope Sixtus IV, the count combined all the incomes from the benefices attached to the church, set up a college of canons with communal life, who would be supported from the general fund thus obtained, and made the church a chapter church or a collegiate church.² In furtherance of his scheme he sought contact with the related chapter churches of the Rhine region and notably with Gabriel Biel in Butzbach. After the usual inspection Biel helped to put the plan into execution. The canons were to enjoy the privileges granted by popes Eugenius IV and Calixtus III to the houses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel; they were also to follow the liturgy of the church of Constance. The prior Benedict, who had been a canon in Marienthal, took up residence on August 16th 1477 with two priests and two deacons.³ He was soon succeeded in 1479 by Gabriel Biel who also became a professor in the theological faculty of Tübingen on November 22nd 1484, thus combining the offices of professor and prior. After relinquishing his professorship in 1492, he remained provost of St. Peter of Einsiedel in Schönbuch until his death in December 1495. This is the first time we have encountered such a learned person among the Brothers, and the combination of a University professorship with the priorate of Brethren of the Common Life is unique! These unusual circumstances can be explained by the transition of the Brothers to canons, by the changing times, i.e. the years 1484 to 1492, when a similar development seemed likely or actually occurred in several places, and by the personality of Gabriel Biel himself. He supported the communal life on principle and was also

1 Otto Meyer, Die Brüder des gemeinsamen Lebens im Württemberg (1477-1517 Stuttgart 1913, 10-12.

2 Landeen 199.

3 Ibid., 199.

[p. 446]

a learned theologian. In Urach he was not the only person to combine the offices of Brother and scholar. The canons of Urach also served the chapel in the count's castle in Tübingen. Those who resided there enjoyed a respectable income and studied at the University. One of these was Wendelin Steinbach. He was admitted to the faculty of theology in 1468, was soon teaching and had already gained his doctorate in 1469. He too was later professor of theology at Tübingen. These canon Brothers displayed a similar interest in the teaching in the school attached to their church. In 1493 they appointed the Humanist Alexius Johann Brassican rector of the school of Urach, and he continued in this office until 1503.¹ It is interesting to note that an indulgence was granted for the completion of the church on July 12th 1478, with the result that Urach attracted many pilgrims.

Encouraged no doubt by his success in Urach, count Eberhart undertook similar transformations in Herrenberg in 1480, where he banished the canons, in Dettingen in 1482 where the Brothers took the place of Augustinian Canons Regular², and at St. Peter at Einsiedel in Schönbuch³ in 1492, where the old Gabriel Biel became rector on January 20th 1492. The church of St. Peter was elevated to a collegiate church, ad instar aliarum ecclesiarum et domorum predictarum. This last foundation, however, was quite special, not to say peculiar. The members of the chapter of Einsiedel consisted of three classes: twelve canons with a provost (also called prior), twelve nobles under a master, and twelve burghers, acting as lay Brothers, who had to assist the canons and the nobles. The canons had to serve the Lord ‘und sin Lob Tag und Nacht mit den göttlichen Ämptern (offices), singen, lesen, beten.’ It is not quite clear what the nobles' task was exactly, but they could keep their own horses and had their own hunting ground. They also bought better clothing. The classes remained distinct, each having its own dormitory. The refectory was communal, but there were separate tables⁴ for each class. No one was allowed to enter the chapter before his 34th year. A married man could then leave his wife. Since the Brothers (the Burghers) were not obliged to share their personal portions or the incomes thereof with the others, but could dispose of it to the honour of God, for the comfort of the poor,

1 Landeen 202.

2 Ibid., 203.

3 Ibid., 204-206.

4 Ibid., 207-211; Landeen: Blätter f. Württembergische Kirchengeschichte 60-61 (1960-61) 5-18.

[p. 447]

and to buy clothes, O. Meyer considers this to be no longer a foundation for Brethren of the Common Life in the proper sense.

It seems remarkable that Gabriel Biel should have lent himself to such an experiment in his old age. Although it appeared viable at first, the death of Biel in 1495 and of Count Eberhart in 1496 deprived it of support and promoters. Under the succeeding Duke Ulrich there was opposition to all these Württemberg foundations, especially since many foreigners had found their way into these chapters. The number of members also decreased. When they were dissolved in 1517¹ the chapter in Urach consisted of thirteen, Dettingen of five and Herrenberg of sixteen. Duke Ulrich requested the Pope's permission to discontinue the foundation.² Pope Leo X allowed him to change the regular foundations into secular. He absolved the Brothers of their obligations regarding the communal life and communal possessions, and allowed them to retain the prebend as a secular (April 19th 1516).³ A portion of the income, however, could be used to pay the thirty singers of the ducal chapel.

The splendour-loving Renaissance prince thus gained his wish, but the canons protested. The Papal bull was put into effect on July 30th 1517, before Luther began the Reformation.⁴ The theologian Gabriel Biel, who strongly supported the communal life of the clergy, spent about the last thirty years of his life in such a community. He explained his attitude in a treatise on The Communal Life of the Clerici.⁵ His chief aim in writing this work was to reply to a question which was frequently put to him: how did the order or institute of the Clerici of the Common Life originate? He gives first a few theoretical reasons: the concept of order; the wellknown text from the Acts of the Apostles on communal possession among the first Christians, and the later ideas on this subject as revealed in the writings of the Fathers and the medieval theologians. He also discusses the pronouncement of the Council of Constance at Grabo's sentence and the privileges granted to the Brothers by Pope Eugene IV and his successors to form a chapter and to elevate their chapels to collegiate churches. He then

1 O. Meyer, Die Brüder des gemeinsamen Lebens im Württemberg 1477-1517, Stuttgart 1913, 47.

2 Landeen 211; Landeen, Blätter, 16.

3 Meyer 53.

4 Ibid., 54-56.

5 Ms. Kon. Bibl. 's-Gravenhage, Ms. no. 75, G 58. Gabriel Biel, ed. by W.M. Landeen: Research studies. A quarterly publication of Washington State University, March 1900. XXVIII (1960) 79-95.

[p. 448]

proceeds to the facts: the story of Geert Groote and the dark picture usually painted of conditions prevailing in the orders and monasteries, when the monastic rule was often neglected and observance was a rare thing. This state of affairs deterred many from entering the monastery, including Geert Groote himself, who thereupon founded the Brotherhood. Florens Radewijns continued his work, and founded Windesheim, a congregation which developed rapidly, retaining the observance in its own monasteries and applying it in others.

Several texts prove that the Brothers' communal life is in accordance with church law. The Brothers worked too, so as not to be a burden to the faithful, and because this provides a good variation in a day filled with study and prayer. This indeed was also praised and recommended by St. Augustine and St. Bernard. The copying of books provides most suitable employment since it gives little distraction and supplies the faithful with good books. Furthermore the Brothers practise caritas, humility and obedience. Their clothing is of the simplest, a grey-black robe, but not a monastic habit: they have no cappa, no cuculla, no scapular. They do, however, wear a caputio ad collum against the cold. They sing as they work.

This then was Biel's view of the Brothers. It is a simple picture and his treatise is by no means a penetrating dissertation. It is striking that he did not see the origin of the Modern Devotion, the rise of the Brethren, as a reaction to the external nature of pious practices. Nor indeed does he mention inward piety.

Accompanying the great expansion which took place during this period and the accompanying conquest of poverty in most houses, the improvement in housing conditions and better facilities for the work among the schoolboys-i.e., separate houses for certain groups of young people who were originally obliged to live in the Brothers' house-came a development of the Brotherhood as such in two directions. One was towards the chapter and canonicate, the other towards a tighter organization, a closer association of the separate houses under one head. Both these trends owed their origin, in part at least, to the same causes which also remained operative later. These were pressure from outside and the hostility of certain groups. Geert Groote had warned against the likelihood of this, and the first fraters had already experienced it. These hindrances continued even after Grabo had been condemned at the Council of Constance, and despite repeated ecclesiastic declarations of approval. Nearly all the new

[p. 449]

foundations went through a difficult time during the first years, largely as a result of this hostility and opposition. Even the older houses like Deventer suffered from this hostile attitude. The difficulties experienced by the Deventer house under Egbert ter Beek around 1470 are revealed in the correspondence, previously discussed, between this rector and pater Jan Brugman. Adaptation to existing church institutions like the collegiate churches on the one hand, and a powerful organization of the different Brotherhouses on the other, helped the Brothers to resist this pressure from outside. For the rest, this close-knit organization, this linking of several houses under one authority, could help to maintain the original spirit, to retain the old customs in practice and to suppress any sign of relaxation. This stricter organization was probably all the more necessary during this period of development from Brotherhouses to chapter, precisely on account of this threatened relaxation.

As we have already seen, opposition had to be overcome in the case of both trends. It thus seems worthwhile to examine both phenomena separately, while not, however, holding them entirely distinct from each other. The first suggestion for transforming a fraternity into a chapter came from pope Eugenius IV. We first hear of this so-called privilege in Peter of Dieburg's story concerning the sending of Bernard Büderich to Rome in 1437 by his rector Henry von Ahaus. He was to obtain certain privileges,¹ although we are not told which. Once in Rome it was soon obvious to Bernard that certain authoritative persons among the lawyers and cardinals could not reconcile the Brothers' institution with ecclesiastical law, no matter how pope Eugenius protested to Bernard his regard for the life of the Brethren. Bernard was obliged to struggle with the curia officials, but had finally to return home with the so-called privilege promulgated by pope Eugenius IV in a bull dated February 14th 1440,² in which it was advised to make the Brotherhouse into a chapter and the chapel into a collegiate church. The bull, published by Doebner,³ seems to be addressed to the churches of St. Trinitate or Springborn of Münster, St. Michael or Weidenbach of Cologne, and St. Martin in Wesel, now elevated to the status of collegiate churches, and at the same time linked with each other and made one to the extent that a canon of one church would possess the same dignity in another. It is also said that the canons had no personal possessions and had to live from the

1 Docbner 28 sq.

2 Barnikol 100.

3 Doebner 210-212.

[p. 450]

communal fund without begging. Each church would have a provost at its head to be chosen by the canons of the house who would thereby form the general chapter. This chapter might also depose the provost, granted sufficient cause, and make statutes for the order of the house.

Bernard brought home the papal letter and explained the gist of it to the colloquium of Münster of 1440 (probably on the Wednesday before Cantate, April 20th.). This colloquium consisted of the rectors of the houses of Münster, Cologne, Herford and Wesel, as well as the rectors of some of the Sisterhouses. The rectors were predictably taken aback. Was this what Henry von Ahaus had asked for? Had the ambassador not been able to prevent such a situation? They decided it was better to forget the whole thing. The letter was filed away in the archives, but Bernard of Büderich, who was appointed rector of the projected house at Hildesheim at the same colloquium, will have taken a copy with him to his new house. The rectors did, however, decide on the authority of the Holy See that the statutes they would make would not be binding under pain of sin (ad culpam) but only of temporal punishment, and that the rector would have the right of dispensation.

Bernard did not entirely forget the privilege and in 1449 he suggested to the Brothers of Hildesheim that they should put it into execution. The church would then become a collegiate church and the Brothers, canons. We have already seen the objections raised by the Brothers to this proposition, and rector Bernard considered it wiser not to insist.¹ When, however, the papal legate, Nicolas of Cusa, visited the town of Hildesheim in 1451, on his journey through Germany, the municipality seized the opportunity to request that the congregation of the Brothers should be dissolved. The cardinal, however, pointed out to these gentlemen that this fraternity had the approval of the Holy See and that it was not in their interest to make difficulties for the Brothers. He advised them to leave the fraters in peace. A few days beforehand he had transmitted to the rector in a sealed letter² the privilege of transforming the Brothers' chapel and house into a collegiate church and chapter.

The cardinal legate continued his journey and probably delivered similar letters to other Brotherhouses. We know that he defended the Brothers in Deventer and wished to give them privileges which would safeguard their position. Rector Egbert ter Beek refused to accept

1 Doebner 56-60.

2 Doebner 22.

[p. 451]

them, however, since he clung to the old simplicitas.¹ As we have pointed out, this privilege will probably have been to raise the status of the Brothers to a chapter.² Rome's action, however, continued.

On March 3rd 1456, Pope Calixtus III ordered the abbot of St. Paul in Utrecht and the provost of St. Peter's in the same town to raise the chapel of St. John of the Brethren of the Common Life of Amersfoort to a collegiate church and to give to that house all the privileges granted to the houses of Münster and Cologne. The provost carried out this order, which had probably been made on request, on April 27th 1461.³ On December 1st 1460 pope Pius II sent a bull in which he granted the house of Hildesheim the privilege concerning the raising of the Brothers' house to a college of canons.⁴ Three years later the new rector of Hildesheim, Lambert Holtappel, put the privileges into practice immediately after his election-without however, introducing the titles of provost and canon.⁵ Shortly afterwards the plan must have existed of putting the privileges into practice at least in Münster and in the closely associated houses of Cologne and Wesel, since a union is proposed in a decree of the colloquium of Münster of the year 1470 which assumes this privilege. In this the rector is referred to as rector swe prepositus collegii Fontissaliensis.⁶ Finally, in a draft for statutes for a union in 1483, it is assumed that all participants have become canons.⁷

Meanwhile the curia in Rome continued its urging. On January 10th 1469 the aforementioned apostolic legate Onofrio in Brussels ordered two Utrecht prelates-again the abbot of St. Paul and the provost of St. Peter-to examine ‘the petition of the Brethren of the Common Life of St. John in Amersfoort, St. Gregory in 's-Hertogenbosch, St. Jerome in Ghent, the Annunciation in Brussels and St. Gregory (popularly known as St. John's) in Geraardsbergen, in which they express their desire to change their chapels into collegiate churches, as has already been done with the chapels of the Brethren of Springhorn in Münster, Weidenbach in Cologne and of the house at Wesel.’ It is doubtful whether the Brothers' desire was so great as the legate suggests. In any case, the change did not proceed so smoothly

1 G. Dumbar, Analecta I 173.

2 See p. 357

3 A. Miraeus, Regulae et constitutiones clericorum, Antwerpen 1638, p. 15.

4 Doebner 61.

5 Doebner 61-64.

6 Doebner 265.

7 Doebner 272.

[p. 452]

in these last mentioned German houses as this document would imply. It is significant that the Brothers of Amersfoort, who had already received the privilege in 1456, are again mentioned here among the suppliants. Still, the legate's letter was certainly brought to the notice of the interested fraters.¹

I have not been able to decide to what extent the granting of this privilege had any effect. However, if the Münster and Hildesheim Brothers (probably not those of Cologne and Wesel) finally accepted the privilege, we may also assume this of the five Dutch houses. On the other hand it must be deduced from the extant documents and chronicles of the houses of Deventer, Zwolle, Doesburg and Emmerich, that the Brothers of these institutions never adopted this change. Still, the fact that virtually all the Rhineland houses of Marienthal, Königstein and Butzbach became chapters with collegiate churches between the years 1463-1468, and established closer ties with Cologne especially, which provided a number of Brothers, shows that this new form-canons who lived in community and retained no personal possessions-not only met with no opposition, but was considered as normal. It is thus no longer so strange when we know that this form may be said to have been introduced at the instigation of Gabriel Biel.

This means that at the end of this period, around 1485, a great majority of the Brethren of the Common Life were either called canons or were considered as such, were under the authority of a provost (sometimes senior) and served a collegiate church, as so many other churches were served by the secular canons.

Did this signify any great change? From the legal point of view, yes, since such a chapter was capable of making new regulations with effect in law, and the authority of the provost was legally greater than that of the rector, to whom the fraters legally owed obedience only ‘as good pupils to the master...’ In actual fact, however, the rector took a great many independent decisions and sometimes humiliated the Brothers in what seems to us an inhuman manner. As collegiate churches the former chapels of the fraters also stood on a sounder legal footing, since their rights were laid down by church law, whereas before the Brothers were dependent on the good will of the pastors and bishop. In actual fact not much was changed. Before the obtaining of this privilege many lay people, including schoolboys, visited the Brethren's churches and chapels. Several lay persons made foundations

1 A. Miraeus, Regulae et constitutiones etc. Antw. 1638, Cap. XIII 16.

[p. 453]

for Masses and for vigils and memoriae. The necrologium of the Lüchtenhofes saeculis XV-XVI¹ looks no different from, for example, that of St. Salvator in Utrecht,² although I must admit that most foundations date from after 1463. Such collegiate churches were more in touch with the life of the people than the fraters' chapels, and to this extent the opposition to the fraters may have declined somewhat. The attackers could no longer fall back upon too strictly interpreted legal regulations, such as the prohibition from founding new monastic orders without the Pope's permission. More important, however, is the question of whether the old ideals of the fraters survived this transformation from fraters to canons with communal life and property. Strictly speaking there should have been no need for them to suffer: the former fraters also sang or prayed the hours, which the canons considered generally as their chief preoccupation. The new style canons could continue to prepare for this work and employ various means in order to transform outward prayers and actions so far as possible into inner experiences. They could carry on with their manual work, and continue to devote themselves to the pastoral care of the schoolboys and Sisters, while rendering their inner piety more intense through study, meditation and examination of conscience. They could practise the virtues of humility, poverty, obedience and chastity just as before. Yet with the loss of their own name, something of their ideals seemed bound to go. By adopting names like provost, canon, chapter and collegiate church, they came to resemble, at least in the eyes of the people, those secular canons who, through their carelessness in performing the offices, their anxiety to delegate these duties to vicars, their comparatively luxurious lives, and their flouting of the law of celibacy, helped to give the church the bad name she acquired in the late Middle Ages. No matter how earnestly the frater-canons tried to live according to the old consuetudines, the change of name alone was sufficient to lure them in the direction of the broad road. Unfortunately we do not possess enough data to decide whether this was indeed so and to what extent.

A tighter central administration was indicated to combat hostility and any relaxation of discipline. Several Brothers attempted to organize one, but others opposed such a move, wishful to preserve their

1 Doebner 283-298.

2 Archief... aartsb. Utrecht IX (1881); X (1882) 270; XI (1883) 212; XII (1884) 105.

[p. 454]

independence and with it the old freedom of action. The heads of the Brotherhouses then began to come together (with or without the confessors of the Sisterhouses), undoubtedly after the model of the related congregation of Windesheim, of which the priors met every year at Windesheim. One group met in Zwolle, the so-called colloquium Zwollense, and another at Münster, the colloquium Monasteriense. We know very little about the Zwolle colloquium, neither its origin, the number of members, its activities or its end. All we do know is that it existed and met every year in Zwolle in the middle and in the second half of the fifteenth century.

It decided, among other things, whether a new foundation should be received into the Fraternity or not- we already saw this when discussing the founding of the Brotherhouse at Gouda.¹ The most frequent references to the Zwolle colloquium are found in the Acts of the Münster colloquium.² E. Barnikol has published an important and critical study on this subject.³ He distinguishes first between two kinds of association of various houses, the first being a union which provided mutual help in calamities (fire, sickness, war) such as that set up in 1425 between the houses of Cologne and Münster, and in 1436 and 1442 among Münster, Cologne, Wesel and Herford. Anything which the treaty of 1425 contained of the second sort was omitted in 1436 and 1442. An agreement similar to that of 1425 continued to exist between these houses and was later adopted or imitated by neighbouring houses, for instance the aforementioned houses of the Upper Rhine and those of Hildesheim, Kassel and Magdeburg. Lack of documentation leaves us uncertain how far this cooperation went and in particular how far the authority extended. The second type of union was of a purely idealistic character. Its aim was to ensure brotherly cooperation in the domains of devotion and discipline among various houses. The colloquia of Zwolle and Münster were in this class. The Münster colloquium met for the first time in 1431 in the Westphalian capital.⁴ Neither the day nor the month of this meeting is known. The prologue stresses the necessity of communal life for the clerici. It goes back to the earliest history of the church and is

1 See p. 404

2 Doebner 246-282. (Protokolle u. Aktenstücke über die Colloquia der unirten Frater- und Schwesternhäuser in Münster (1431-1506).

3 E. Barnikol, Studien zur Geschichte der Brüder vom gemeinsamen Leben, Tübingen 1917, 112-155.

4 Doebner 246-242, 252-254.

[p. 455]

expressly advocated in the Acts of the Apostles 4, 32. Such a community makes us strong against attacks from outside. But living together and holding everything in common means nothing unless there is mutual love. This must be fostered and therefore it is necessary to practice humility and obedience.¹ For this reason, continues the text of the agreement, the rectors of the houses of Münster, Cologne and Herford, together with the rectors of four Sisterhouses (Borken, Schutdorp, Coesveld and Wesel) conclude a brotherhood in love, in which they bind themselves to meet in Münster every year on the fourth Wednesday after Easter, (i.e. the Wednesday before Cantate) and hold two days discussion on matters of service to their houses and persons. Hence the title colloquium or discussion, not chapter or committee. They wish to put into execution any decisions taken, always mindful of their debt of obedience to the church authorities. For they possess the power to make decisions concerning themselves and their houses and so to persevere in the good, the true faith, in communion with the Catholic Church and so attain the goal. In this way they safeguarded the principle which was already laid down in the charter of the priores, dated 1395, in that of Florens Radewijns of 1396, of Henry van Ahaus of 1401 and of the archbishop of Cologne of 1422.² There is nothing new or unusual in this subjection to the authority of the church. Certain regulations were then drawn up concerning the direction and course of such a colloquium. The rector of Münster was made president and the office of secretary was virtually reserved for the procurator of this house. In emergencies, when the colloquium was not able to meet quickly enough, the rector of Münster could make decisions with or without consultation with rectors of neighbouring houses. One important point is that the visitation of each house by two rectors was laid down and that the manner of visitation was indicated. The visitatores enjoyed considerable powers in the choice of rectors and rectresses. They had to be present at the election and could consequently influence them. A rector might not be relieved of his office without their permission.³ Then follow regulations of a domestic nature concerning the holding of functions within in the house (no mention of a teacher or docent) and meals and fasts. When all this had been decided, the first sitting began. Various rules were drawn up and the first of any importance for us is that the rectors

1 Doebner 246-247.

2 Doebner, add. I 156-169.

3 Ibid., 250-251.

[p. 456]

were to ask everyone belonging to the house if they would be willing to abide by the decisions which the colloquium would make in the future. This was duly done and next year all the rectors were able to say that everyone had agreed.¹ This amounted in fact to a conferring of authority upon the colloquium and the rectors assembled there. The Brothers were bound to obey the decisions of the colloquium transmitted to them by the rector. It is not clear if these decisions were taken on a majority or a unanimous vote.² A measure was sometimes tried for a year, and made obligatory or not in the third year according to whether or not it was successful.³ It was also decided that a Brother might only preach in public, in a parish church for example, if he had received permission from the rector and Brothers. He must then exercise caution and discretion. A Brother might make a personal vow of obedience to the rector directly to God, but the rector might not praise such an action or even accept it.⁴ The other decisions concerned matters of less importance, or touched upon domains with which we are already familiar, for example, the election of the rector. One important decree was that which said that Henry Loder (1436-1439), prior of the monastery of Frenswegen at Northorn, and his successors, should be present at the colloquia, and could also be appointed visitator of the houses.⁵ It appears from this that a link was desired with the neighbouring monastery of the Windesheimer congregation. The prior of Windesheim fulfilled the same task at the colloquium of Zwolle. It may be assumed that in deciding what form their meetings should take, the founders of the colloquium of Münster and of Zwolle thought of the annual general chapter of Windesheim. They undoubtedly imitated it, but one should bear in mind that the priors who met in Windesheim had a firmer basis of authority in their monasteries than had the rectors. It is thus that the general chapter had more significance than the colloquia. In imitating this chapter the aim of the colloquia was to achieve a clear authority against the Brothers, which would fall to the rectors of Münster and Zwolle. To me this explains the opposition of the rectors of Hildesheim and later of the others to a closer union of the various houses with the Münster colloquium. They feared that the rector of this house would gain too much power. Barnikol has clearly shown that the prologue and text of the agreement were drawn up in the Münster house by rector Henry von

1 Doebner 248-249.

2 Ibid., 145-146.

3 Ibid., 253.

4 Ibid., 253.

5 Ibid., 253-254.

[p. 457]

Ahaus who was naturally held in high esteem in the then existing houses, since they all owed their existence to a greater part to his work.¹ Barnikol did not pause to wonder, however, whether perhaps the colloquium of Zwolle originated first and if so, whether the Münster text is perhaps dependent on that of Zwolle. Unfortunately we know nothing about the date or circumstances of the Zwolle colloquium. In 1437 however, the members of the Münster colloquium decided that two of them should go to the colloquium partium inferiorum, i.e., of Zwolle, and that two of that colloquium should come to Münster, to preserve mutual love. They immediately chose two persons who would go to Zwolle in the following year, where the colloquium met on the third Friday after Easter, i.e. the Friday before the Wednesday and Thursday of the Münster Assembly.² The Brothers of Münster were thus aware of the existence of the Zwolle colloquium in 1437 and also knew on what day it was held. The fact that from the very beginning they decided to hold their meeting during the week after that of Zwolle, might indicate that the Zwolle colloquium existed earlier. This seems not unlikely if one takes into account the position of the Dutch houses with regard to the German, the respect for rector Dirk of Herxen, the similar attitude of Windesheim and Frenswegen towards the Brothers,³ and the matters dealt with-chiefly visitations and the question of the admittance of new houses. Unfortunately we have no evidence on which to base this assumption, but it would indeed show up the activities of Münster in a different light.

We must follow the further development of the Münster institution, without paying too much heed to those regulations which are of purely local importance. We shall however, consider certain noteworthy or characteristic decrees.

During the first years the assembly met regularly in Münster. In 1433 Godfried of Hemert, rector of the Brotherhouse at Amersfoort, was also present and even signed the decrees.⁴ How did this man come to attend the Münster colloquium and, apparently, not solely as a guest? Was he a delegate from the Zwolle colloquium? This is unlikely since the choice would presumably have fallen rather on Dirk of Herxen, rector of Zwolle, or Godfried of Toorn, rector of Deventer. Did

1 Barnikol 125-126.

2 Doebner 257.

3 Both were founded by the Brothers, Windesheim by those of Deventer, Frenswegen by those of Almelo (1394).

4 Doebner 254.

[p. 458]

Godfried seek help in Münster in his then rather trying position in Amersfoort, where he was living with the Regulars. The matter remains perplexing since neither he nor any of his successors ever attended the Münster colloquium again.

The colloquium of 1433 took certain measures to safeguard the confessors of the Sisterhouses; they also decided that the members should burn a German book, De Vita Christiana.¹ They would be careful in future about lending out books in the vernacular; the Brothers would not meddle with matters which were the concern of the prelates, for instance, taking action against unchaste monks and sisters; and in future the Brothers would also avoid the words bridegroom and bride in their talks for the Sisters. This last signified at the same time a rejection of the bride mystique, so popular in the late Middle Ages, which in turn is a sign of distaste for all mystique. It was the first time that the prior of the monastery of Böddiken was present. Henceforth he would attend the colloquium with the prior of Frenswegen. In 1435 the authority of the colloquium was increased when it was made obligatory for all the members to attend. If it was absolutely impossible for a rector to come, he had to give the reasons for his absence and send a representative, under threat of punishment.² The Brotherhouse of Wesel was then accepted as a member.³ Characteristic for the importance of the prior of the monastery of Frenswegen, Henry Loder, is the report of the meeting of 1436. This man being absent, nothing was decided. This shows a slavish subjection to the opinion of the Canons Regular.⁴ In 1437 follows the aforementioned collaboration with the Zwolle colloquium.⁵ There was no meeting in 1438-because rector Henry von Ahaus ‘had his reasons.’⁶ The successor for the recently decreased Henry von Ahaus was chosen at the assembly of 1439; he was Herman of Wernen. Gerard of Rees, rector of Doesburg, was present, as the Zwolle delegate.⁷ In 1440 the colloquium decided to undertake the foundation of a house at Hildesheim. Münster sent the first Brothers and provided them with money.⁸ There was also mention of a second clerics' house (domus clericorum) in Münster, repeated in the following year. To my mind this refers to a hostel, a house for pupils.⁹ In 1443 the obligatory participation in the colloquia

1 I do not know which book is referred to. The title is general.

2 Doebner 255.

3 Ibid., 256-257.

4 Ibid., 257.

5 See p. 457

6 Ibid., 258.

7 Ibid., 258.

8 Ibid., 259.

9 Ibid., 260

[p. 459]

was intensified. Each member of the house was required to have in his possession a copy of the list of decrees and also of the consuetudines.¹ That nothing could be done without the prior of Frenswegen and the rector of Münster is clearly stated in 1444, when very little was discussed, because both these men were absent.² We have no reports of any meetings from 1445 to 1448, but the annalist of Hildesheim expressly states that there was no meeting between 1449 and 1457 on account of party strife and disasters in Münster³, and of wars, including one in which several princes from the Low Countries were embroiled.⁴ Barnikol points out that this lapse in the colloquia was responsible for the failure of the plan to found a central administration of the German Brotherhouses and to impose a fixed organization on these houses.⁵

The annalist of Hildesheim later adds in his annals that in his opinion the fraters who had come to Hildesheim from Münster had returned home,⁶ as though he, i.e., Peter of Dieburg, wished to say: ‘There is no reason at all why we should be subject to Münster.’ The colloquium revived in 1458 with the heads of the same houses as before being present. The rector of Hildesheim also put in an appearance. According to the text of the colloquium decrees, preserved in Hildesheim, the members decided that from henceforth the rector of Münster or his representative would be personally present at the election of the rector of each house. The annalist immediately notes however: our house is not accustomed to do this and never has done it.⁷ Münster's claims, which were partly realized since the rector of the Münster house was president of the colloquium, seem to me unusually high. In the following year the mentality of the rector of Münster-now Dirk of Wesel-was again revealed. The colloquium namely decided that henceforth the heads of the houses should come cum pleno consensu suppositorum suorum, with the full authority of their subjects.⁸ This offered the colloquium freedom of action, but the Hildesheimers voted against. In practice too, more unity was sought. To this end the colloquium decided in 1465 that the unifying and improvement of the statutes and customs should be discussed, and that the decrees of the colloquium should be written down in their entirety. Peter of Dieburg later added: this was never done. The Brotherhouse in Rostock, an offshoot of Springborn (Münster), was admitted to

1 Doebner 261.

2 Ibid., 261.

3 Ibid., 262.

4 Ibid., 20.

5 E. Barnikol, Studien etc. 130.

6 Ibid., 262.

7 Ibid., 262.

8 Ibid., 263.

[p. 460]

the colloquium in 1466.¹ More remarkable however, was the admission, in 1469, with the colleges' approval, of the parish church of Butzbach. It was elevated to a chapter with communal life, the first of this kind which was admitted to the fraternity and hence incorporated; the houses of Marienthal, in Rheingau and Königstein were already incorporated. This signified a not inconsiderable extension of the Münster Brotherhouse's sphere of influence. On the other hand, the colloquium was unable to push through the measure that absent members should pay a double contribution. This was at the same time an ominous indication that there were no delegates from Hildesheim, Kassel, Rostock, Marienthal or Königstein.²

The supporters of a stricter organization persisted, however; they wanted a general union of all the houses affiliated to the colloquium. But the realization of this project promised to be a heavy undertaking, since objections were already being made to a previously compiled agenda; to the payment of the cost of the meeting by those who were absent. There seems to have been an increase in non-attendance at the colloquia.³

The general union remained an ideal for Münster. In 1470 the members of the colloquium expanded it further. All the rectors agreed to abide by the decisions and decrees of such a general chapter, in accordance with the tenor of the privileges obtained from Münster, and to work to bring about this union. The name of general chapter and the mention of the privileges of Münster indicate that the members were not averse to the idea of the chapter being transformed into a collegiate church, or indeed to becoming canons. The then rector of Hildesheim, Lamberts, had no personal objections-quantum in me est! But his successor, Peter of Dieburg, repeats his note to the acts of Münster, that this union never came about.⁴ The supporters of the union also wished to apply the privileges in question and decided that, once this union was an accomplished fact, the capitulum generale would consist of the rector or provost of Springborn (Münster), with four Brothers from this house specially chosen for this position, and also the rectors or provosts of the different houses, each with a frater selected by the house. If the rector could not get any delegate to accompany him to the chapter, he had to bring evidence to the effect that he possessed complete authority to represent the house.⁵

1 Doebner 265-266.

2 Ibid., 263.

3 Ibid., 264.

4 Ibid., 264-265.

5 Ibid., 265.

[p. 461]

According to Peter of Dieburg Hildesheim had not entered the union and thus the regulations were not binding on the canon-fraters of Hildesheim.

In 1471, says Dieburg, the rector of Münster tried to acquire the right of appointing with two others the visitators to each house. Hildesheim remarks, however, that the visitator for that house was appointed by the bishop on the spot.¹ The projected union appears to have been achieved in 1473 and was composed of the houses of Münster, Cologne, Wesel, Herford, Rostock, Kassel, Butzbach, Marienthal and Königstein. Diebrg, however, continues to assert: ‘it remained incomplete and was annulled.’²

In 1476 the rectors of Hildesheim and Kassel obtained the right to attend the colloquium only every other year.³ A communal fund was proposed in order to assist certain houses.

A decree dating from this same year, 1476, shows that the terminology is becoming increasingly monastic. It is said that the profugi fratres, the runaway fraters, should not be accepted as guests before it was established that they would be admitted and do penance.⁴

Hildesheim became isolated through her opposition to the union, hence the necessity in 1477 for expounding the Hildesheimers' point of view to the college in Deventer and Zwolle.⁵ In this same year the rector, Peter of Dieburg, drew the logical conclusions. He sent a message to the colloquium of Münster, whose authority he did not recognize but to which he desired to be joined in love. He would attend the colloquium of Münster or Zwolle once every three years and then pay the usual contribution. In special cases he would attend oftener. If the decrees of Münster were made known to him, he would accept them, assuming that they had to be put to the test.⁶ In 1481, when the rector of Hildesheim was absent and his name was called, someone cried: ‘Abdicatur,’-let him be excluded-but John Veghe, at that time rector of Münster, finally decided: let Hildeshim come once every three years.⁷ The year 1482 was the third year and Peter should accordingly have gone to Münster, but he was old, and there was a conflict in progress between the town of Hildesheim and the bishop. Instead he sent a representative with a letter of apology and the news that he had started a new foundation in Magdeburg. Peter

1 Doebner 266.

2 Ibid., 266.

3 Ibid., 266-267.

4 Ibid., 267.

5 Ibid., 267.

6 Ibid., 267-268.

7 Ibid., 269, 87.

[p. 462]

Thymannus, who had succeeded John Veghe as rector of Münster, made him a pleasant reply.

But the members of the colloquium persisted. In 1483 a new project for a general union was drawn up, without Hildesheim's knowledge. The rector of Hildesheim, however, got wind of the document and incorporated it in the protocols of the colloquium. He gives first the proposed regulations and then his objections to them.¹ It would be a union similar to those which existed between the houses of Münster, Cologne and Wesel. Then would come a generale capitulum (no longer colloquium) after the pattern of the privilege of pope Eugenius IV-in other words, all the associated houses would in fact be chapters. Peter of Dieburg was not opposed to this transition from Brotherhouses to chapters-which in any event had already taken place in Hildesheim. But they would never again be able to found a new Brotherhouse if necessary, for there were already enough collegiate churches in all the large towns, with or without a cathedral, and the building of collegiate churches would be too expensive in the smaller towns or in the country, where usually dilapidated churches had to be restored. Moreover, there was no opportunity there of attracting school children.² The assembly proposed holding the general chapter every three years-one in Upper Germany, the other in Lower Germany. A canon from one of the associated houses would be a member of another chapter at the same time. No one might transfer from one house to another, however, without the general chapter's consent. The houses must assist each other in case of calamity. No one might repair or accept another house or undertake extensive repairs in the house, without permission of the general chapter. One prelate (a rector, now provost) and a fellow canon would act as visitators.³

This is indeed a far cry from the houses of the Common Life. The names are completely changed, and the centralization would become as great as with the new orders of Franciscans and Dominicans. The chapter is the head and administrator to which everyone is subject. It is precisely this last point which so annoys Peter of Dieburg. Those canons who are of good family and obtain academic degrees are not prepared for the work, he thinks. The humble, the simple, the unschooled, the poor Brothers, all would disappear.⁴ It is for this reason that Hildesheim refuses to accept such a union. Nor will it undertake

1 Doebner 272-277.

2 Ibid., 272-273.

3 Ibid., 276.

4 Ibid., 276.

[p. 463]

to obey decisions made chiefly by the rectors of Münster, Cologne and Wesel. This administrative power assumes a right of punishment which is already evident from the early decree that all rectors are obliged to attend the colloquium, and that those who do not must pay just the same; that the visitators are appointed by the rector of Münster and that he or his representative must be present at the election of a rector (provost).¹ The letter which Peter of Dieburg sent to Münster in 1490 and which we have already discussed, is written in the same spirit. In the years 1484, 1485 and also in 1490, representatives from Hildesheim attended the Zwolle colloquium a few times in order to discuss the question of Berlicum.² The rector of Hildesheim's excuse for not ‘visitating’ Münster in 1486, was accepted. The relations between Hildesheim and Münster seem to have improved somewhat after the death of Peter of Dieburg, but it is not entirely clear whether the union as intended above came into being without Hildesheim.

The negotiations between the Brothers of Münster and those of the other houses on the setting up of a closer union clearly revealed Peter of Dieburg's desire for independence. His opposition to such an association or union of the German Brotherhouses is not directed against any particular decree, but against the project itself, against any domination of other houses by the rector of Münster. He considered that for the individual houses to relinquish their independence to form an order under the power of the rector of Münster, would not only be contrary to the spirit in which the Brotherhood was founded, but would also be in conflict with the religious personality itself.

His consciousness of the necessity to preserve and defend the inner, individual religious spirit led him to include four Excurses in his Annals, in which he expounds his ideas on this point. All four were inspired separately and are therefore dated. The first is an expression of what he had observed during the two and a half years of interdict on Hildesheim. The fact that Mass was said only seldom in the Brothers' chapel had greatly enhanced the appreciation of this sacred act (1443).³ From this he concludes: ‘The richer the holy places and relics, and the more frequent the Mass, the more arid remains the heart.’ Only inner devotion can bring salvation here. Meditation and ‘rumination’ on the passion of Christ renders the receiving of the sacraments

1 Doebner 277, compare 113.

2 Ibid., 279-282.

3 Doebner, 144-150.

[p. 464]

more fruitful, not only communion but the other sacraments as well. He considers Christ as the temple; every Christian may enter and entry is forbidden to no one, not even the excommunicated or those who are excluded from church burial. One condition, however, was repentance. He found many priests who assumed the priestly function without possessing the necessary spiritual disposition or knowing the inner devotion, who indeed even scoffed at these things. He came out against the founding of more and more altars and vicarages. If there were less of them they would be more esteemed. The pope or his legate is naturally treated with more respect in Germany than in Italy.

The second ‘Excurs’ was inspired by a will made in 1447. Peter of Dieburg considered it better to bequeath one's possessions to the poor or to leave them unconditionally to churches or monasteries, than to reserve them for various Masses, vigils and memoriae. There is often a touch of egoism in this last and at the same time a lack of confidence in God, who after all knows very well what is given to the poor or to churches. However, he considers such bequests meritorious.¹

Peter's third ‘Excurs’ arose from his thoughts on rector Bernard of Büderich on the occasion of his death in 1457. He did not praise this man in order to glorify the holy Brothers. On the contrary, he found that too many shortcomings could be detected amongst them. There were many difficulties and several had left the institution. In his view, the more sanctity was brought to the light of day, the more rapidly devotion and humility disappeared. For the more outward respect we receive, the more we depart from the true and the inward. We have earned our bread by the work of our own hands, but not in order to hoard it. We must use the money for the schoolboys and the poor.²

The inspiration behind the fourth ‘Excurs’ was the death and the legacy of a suffragan bishop, Ernest, in 1467. Peter of Dieburg complains of the hostility encountered by his congregation from many directions. Not only did this opposition hamper the founding and first growth of a new Brotherhouse, it also led to many Brothers leaving the fraternity, either to return to the world or to enter a monastery. This transition to a higher and stricter form of life is in his opinion praiseworthy, but he cannot approve the propaganda made for it. He considers their references to the law, the rule and the

1 Doebner 150-152.

2 Ibid., 152-154.

[p. 465]

vow rather irrelevant, since all these can be broken. The spirit is more important and the spirit is found among the Brothers.¹

In these ‘Excurses,’ as indeed in the Hildesheim annals and in his notes to the protocols of the Münster colloquium, Peter of Dieburg shows himself a confirmed supporter of the congregation of the Brothers. As he had formerly evinced his desire to preserve the independence of the separate houses so as to be able to attain the original goals of the Brothers, so in these dissertations he comes out strongly in favour of the internal life, inner piety, simplicity and humility. It is for him a constant source of scandal that the Brothers should be so harrassed by members of the orders. This defence of inner piety - so indispensable in receiving the sacraments-and his stress on the direct way to Christ, lead him to expressions which in theory will probably have been accepted without difficulty by his contemporaries, but which must have struck a strange note in the life of the times, if indeed they were known and published then. Everyone has access to Christ, and no one is rejected, neither the sinner nor the excommunicated person. Everyone can be made clean. They only are rejected who, ex contemptu, refuse to see and will not enter into the Kingdom of God. Repentance accompanied by faith and the desire for baptism may replace baptism and lead to the forgiveness of sins. It is thus that the holy doctors call inner penitence a baptism. Christ's mercy is boundless. The remark on the large number of priests and altars, and the significance of the founding of new vicarships, with the subsequent results, strikes a remarkable note for the 15th century. It testifies to an extremely independent spirit and a mind open to the facts. His works also display his great erudition which he must have acquired by his own study, but which seems to reveal that he had enjoyed a better scientific training than the other fraters. Not only was he a good chronicler, like some of the fraters from Emmerich, Deventer, Doesburg and Zwolle, he was also well acquainted with the Bible and with a number of medieval theologians. He leads us to examine the ideas of John Pupper of Goch, Wessel Gansfort and Gabriel Biel who are considered as the theologians among the fraters. Before proceeding to their works, however, let us make a short summary of our findings.

We have noted a gradual but steady expansion over a terrain which

1 Doebner 154-159.

[p. 466]

comprises the present day Netherlands, Belgium and a large part of West Germany. The Württemberg houses were the most southerly, with Rostock furthest to the north and Culm and Magdeburg away off to the East. All these houses had a difficult time in the beginning. They were made up of priests and clerici, with one or two lay brothers for the household work. These clerici may be considered as future priests. They entered when they had completed or almost completed the Latin course in the city schools. They had no further lessons, not even in theology. The only theological knowledge they were able to acquire was in their short study periods during the day. Not one of them went to university, and only very few, perhaps five in all, entered after having completed a year or two of university study. Their life was the practice of devotion-prayer, keeping alive the good intention, holding their goal constantly before their eyes, fostering the honour of God, being convinced of their own nothingness and desiring to remain as simple as possible, to be poor and to work. Up to the end of this period they devoted their time chiefly to the copying of books. It was only at the end that some of the Brothers undertook printing. In addition they devoted much care to the training of the students, boys who attended the city school. They did this in two ways: they received a certain small group into their house, originally their own house, but as soon as possible in a separate hostel which was usually called domus pauperum, although richer boys were also admitted from time to time. In some places there were even separate hostels for these rich students. In addition they attempted to gain as much spiritual contact as possible with all the boys of the city school, through their addresses, their conversations, hearing confessions and administering the Holy Eucharist. We have been able to establish the existence of such hostels in Deventer, Zwolle, Doesburg, Groningen, 's-Hertogenbosch, Delft, Gouda, Nijmegen, Ghent, Brussels, Münster and Emmerich. An attempt was made to found a hostel in Hildesheim, but it did not succeed in this period. Everywhere the hostel boys attended the city schools which already existed in each city long before the Brothers settled there. The lessons in the hostels were confined to rehearsing and helping. This already follows from the fact that there were only two Brothers staying in these hostels, one to administer and keep order and the other to assist the boys. There is no mention at all of a docent or teacher in the lists of functions in the Brotherhouses. Those who had taught before entering relinquished their school positions on becoming Brothers. Teaching in the school

[p. 467]

and being a Brother were considered incompatible during this period. Teaching is only mentioned in connection with two places, Gouda and Culm. The school in Gouda, however, was small and of no significance, while the report dealing with Culm is confused and doubtful. The question of instruction at Urach in Württemberg is somewhat different. There the Brothers were given charge of the church and with it of the existing parish school. They then extended this school, but entrusted the teaching to a rector whom they appointed, and to his assistants.

Another priestly function exercised by the Brothers was the pastoral care of the sisters, whether Sisters of the Common Life or sisters following an established monastic rule. They acted as rector and sometimes as confessor, and lived in near the Sisterhouse. These rectors were quite independent, visiting the colloquium of Münster or Zwolle and being considered equal with the rectors of the Brotherhouses. For this function, for the direction of their own houses and for those of the schoolboys and Sisters, the Brothers required a number of priests. Their houses can indeed be viewed in some measure as training institutions for priests, if one excepts instruction in theology.

It is a remarkable thing that the popes repeatedly attempted to persuade the Brothers to transform their chapels into collegiate churches, the fraternities into chapters, the Brothers into canons and the rector into a provost, retaining, throughout, community of life and property. So far as we can judge nearly all the German houses and perhaps several of the Dutch had adopted this form of existence by the end of this period. To a certain extent this signified the disappearance of the Brothers in Germany. From henceforth they were called canons, but they retained their ideals. It was only towards the end of the period that Humanism began to show itself very sporadically in those regions where the Brothers lived. However, far from there being any contact, this was demonstrably impossible, since the Brothers held aloof from all academic milieus. At most they had contact with the rector or teachers of a few city schools, but here too Humanism only made its appearance around 1483, and this will be discussed in the following period.

They cannot be said in any sense to have paved the way for the Reformation, either by their life, which was essentially monastic with no exalted mystical inspiration, being severely ascetic in character, or by their religious or ecclesiastical ideas. Only one of their members might conceivably be viewed as a ‘precursor.’ This was Peter of

[p. 468]

Dieburg, a sober and independent spirit who stressed the importance of the direct link with Christ, more or less at the expense of the sacraments and the power of the Church. He was by no means a radical. His position was virtually unique, if we except the three persons to be discussed in the following chapter: John Pupper of Goch († March 8th 1473), John Wessel of Groningen († 1489), and Gabriel Biel († 1495). All three are considered as precursors of the Reformation and, by several who reject this concept, as proclaimers of dogmas which bear some similarity to those of Luther. They are even thought to have influenced Luther, and this is undoubtedly true of Gabriel Biel. All three were theologians of stature who diverged on several important points either from other reputable theologians like Thomas Aquinas, or even from particular points which must be considered as church doctrine. At the same time they are viewed as supporters of the Modern Devotion, either on account of their membership of a particular Brotherhouse or because of their association with the Brotherhood. Their learning is often held to be that of the Brothers or at least is seen as a fruit of their teaching or their milieu. We shall now turn our attention to this problem.